Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

H.M.S. "AMETHYST"

Sir Waldron Smithers: On a point of Order. Before beginning our proceedings, Mr. Speaker, would you invite hon. Members to stand in their places and give three cheers for the safe return of H.M.S. "Amethyst"?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Contributions (Excepted Employment)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that employees in excepted employment who, on retirement from such employment after the age of 60, enter the contributory pensions scheme, have no chance of qualifying for an old age pension although they may pay contributions for five years; and whether, in these circumstances, he will refund their contributions.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): The hon. Member is, I think, referring to certain provisions of the old contributory pensions Acts. These are no longer operative.

Mr. Turton: Do I understand that employees in excepted employment who retired after the age of 60 can now qualify for a contributory pension?

Mr. Steele: No. What I am saying is that the persons to whom the hon. Gentleman appears to refer were covered by the old contributory pensions Acts which have been repealed.

Mr. Turton: Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will answer my Question, which

was: Have these people paid contributions for five years with no hope or expectation of getting a pension; and will not the hon. Gentleman take the honourable course of refunding their contributions?

Mr. Steele: The hon. Gentleman appears to be referring to men who were 65 before 5th July, 1948, and who therefore did not come within the provisions of the new Act. What he is in fact asking me to do is to make some alteration of Acts of Parliament which have already been repealed.

Ministry Staff, Edinburgh (Ex-Service Men)

Sir William Darling: asked the Minister of National Insurance on what principle redundancy notices have been served on disabled ex-Service men employed as temporary clerks in the Ministry of National Insurance in Edinburgh; and what consideration is given to the claims of such ex-Service men in view of their difficulty in obtaining suitable employment in Edinburgh and district.

Mr. Steele: The preliminary warnings of probable redundancy have been issued on the basis of agreements reached on the National Whitley Council. These provide that special consideration shall be given to severely disabled persons who have performed six months' satisfactory service.

Sir W. Darling: What I am anxious to know on behalf of my constituents is: On what principle does the Ministry act in discharging disabled ex-Service men, whose chances of employment are extremely difficult, in preference to others?

Mr. Steele: We act upon the agreement which has been negotiated at a national level.

Sir W. Darling: Am I to understand that the disabled ex-Service men have made an agreement whereby they may be rendered redundant in preference to others who are not so disabled?

Mr. Steele: The agreement made has been made with all the staff.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree it is high time that that agreement


was revised, owing to the fact that all the ex-Service men's organisations were not taken into consultation?

Mr. Steele: As I informed the hon. and gallant Gentleman last week, there is machinery for any alteration which may be desired, namely, through the Whitley Council.

Benefits (Statistics)

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of National Insurance the figures of the number of persons receiving the sickness and other insurance benefits under the old scheme which are detailed under headings of the payments made in the Annual Abstract of Statistics.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): The figures asked for are not available as no statistics were maintained of the number of persons receiving each of the benefits under the old scheme.

Mr. White: Is it not an extraordinary situation that there are full details of the total payments made on sickness benefits but apparently no record of the number of persons to whom they were made?

Mr. Griffiths: That was a defect in the returns made under the old system. They returned the total amount of benefits paid but no details about the number of benefits. That will be corrected when we issue our annual reports under the new scheme.

Seasonal Workers (Report)

Mr. David Thomas: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he has yet received the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the question of benefit conditions for seasonal workers.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. I have received this Report. It has now been published and copies will be available in the Vote Office after Questions. I am giving it my careful consideration, but I have not yet reached any conclusions as to the action which I shall take on it.

Regional Medical Officers (Decisions)

Mr. Douglas Houghton: asked the Minister of National Insurance what decisions were reached by regional medical

officers in the 202,188 cases referred to them for second medical opinion in the 12 months ended 30th September, 1949, and the 75,189 referred to them in the previous 12 months.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As the answer contains a number of figures I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The particulars expressed as percentages are as follow:



Cases submitted to Regional Medical Officer



Year ended 30th September, 1949
Year ended 30th September, 1948


Accepted as incapable without examination after consultation with claim ant's doctor, or found incapable of work on examination
48
41


Incapable of normal occupation but not incapable of alternative work
4
5


Not incapable of work
16
13


Failed to attend examination or submitted evidence of recovery before examination
32
41

The reports of regional medical officers do not constitute decisions on claims for benefits but are evidence which, along with the certificates rendered by the claimant's own doctor, would be taken into account by the statutory authorities in determining the claim.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Export Industries

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to get additional labour into the export industries to meet the extra demands arising from devaluation; and if he has discussed the matter with the trades unions concerned.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): There are existing arrangements for giving a preference in the supply of labour to industries and firms engaged on dollar earning and dollar saving production. I have initiated discussions with both sides of industry to review and, where necessary, strengthen these arrangements.

Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister satisfied that the exporting trades are to get the extra labour they will require, or is he expecting the same labour to do the extra work to meet the new demands?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. The hon. Member asked what steps we are proposing to take. We propose to continue the present steps and, where necessary, to strengthen them in the hope that we shall be able to supply all the industries' requirements.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that everything is being done? Is the comb-out really sufficient? Is he aware that the Dorchester, the Mayfair and other places are simply swarming with useless men and women who ought to be directed into productive employment?

Mr. Isaacs: I have informed the House that I have no powers to comb-out. All I can do is to make the best use of the labour that comes to us.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Are no special steps being taken, with reference to the textile industry in Lancashire, to get women to come into Lancashire and work in the cotton industry?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. Special steps have been taken in Lancashire with successful results, and further supplies of labour are now becoming available.

Mr. Osborne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Dorchester and the Mayfair labour would be useless in most textile areas?

Dispute, Bermondsey

Mr. Mellish: asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to settle the dispute between the management and workers of C. W. Martin & Co. of Bermondsey.

Mr. Isaacs: This dispute, which has resulted in a stoppage of work since 13th October, arises on a question of trade union membership. An officer of my Department has been in close touch with the parties, and further discussions with them are taking place today.

Mr. Mellish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that out of 450 employees 425 are members of this trade union, and that the employees have shown great tolerance for

nine months in negotiating with the firm for their ordinary fundamental rights? Is this not a case where the employer is wrong and should be severely dealt with?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not know that we have any powers to deal severely with the employer. The fact that he is coming to the Ministry today may mean that he is being severely dealt with.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it not possible for the Department to inform this firm that all decent employers for a very long time have recognised trade unionists?

Mr. Isaacs: Probably that information will be imparted to them today.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does not my right hon. Friend think it is very strange that where there is a strike and the employers are wrong no publicity is given in the national Press, but that if the workers are wrong, it is put in the headlines?

Wage Agreements (Cost of Living)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking with reference to existing agreements under which the amount of wages, salaries and other remuneration are affected by variations in the cost of living; what is the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to such agreements; and what steps he is taking to invite the attention of the two sides of industry to that policy.

Mr. Isaacs: It is the Government's policy to entrust the settlement of wages and conditions of employment to the joint negotiating machinery in industry, and any questions arising on the agreements to which the hon. Member refers would be a matter for such machinery in the industries concerned. I am satisfied that the two sides of industry are fully aware of the Government's view, expressed in this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 27th September, that there must be a strict observance of the terms of the White Paper on personal incomes, prices and profits.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not clear whether that answer means that it is the view of the Government that there should be a variation in agreements which, if carried out in their present form, must lead to a proportionate rise in many wage rates when the cost of living rises.

Mr. Isaacs: I think the view of the Government was expressed to that extent in the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know that the industries are considering this, and one has already come to a decision about it.

Clyde Shipyards

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he is aware that unemployment in the shipyards is causing grave anxiety on the Clyde; that fears of further reductions in capital expenditure is adding to that anxiety; and what steps he is taking to ensure alternative employment for all men discharged as redundant from the dockyards of the Clyde;
(2) if he is aware of the anxiety caused by the growing unemployment in the shipyards of the Clyde; and what steps he is taking either in conjunction with other Departments or on his own to attract fresh orders to this area, to investigate alternative schemes of employment or in other ways to secure that these workmen are enabled to use their skill to the advantage of their country.

Mr. Isaacs: I am aware that some anxieties are prevalent in various shipyard areas. As regards the Clyde, however, there has been no significant growth recently in the numbers of shipyards workers registered as unemployed. My information is that the present level of employment in the Clyde shipyards can be expected to continue until at least the early summer of next year. There may then be some falling-off as reconversion jobs come to completion. In that event, suitable work is likely to be available for any skilled men who may be displaced, and every effort will be made to place them and others in alternative work as quickly as possible. The outlook is being kept continually under review by the Departments concerned, together with the general problem of unemployment in this area.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the fear is not that by next summer there will be some falling off in employment, but that by next summer there will be a great amount of unemployment on the Clyde on the basis of present orders?

Mr. Isaacs: I can assure the House and the Members who have put down these Questions that this question of ship

repairs and shipyard work is having frequent and regular consideration. There has been a drop of 2,684 in the shipyard labour force on the Clyde, but the number of unemployed in the area has gone up by 290; so some 2,600 have gone into other jobs.

Mr. Gallacher: As there is a considerable falling-off in repairs and re-conversions, and as there is a great increase in tankers as compared with ordinary shipping, will the Minister realise that there is great uneasiness right down the whole length of the Clyde, and will he not discuss with the other members of the Government the desirability of a graving dock in Greenock so that all the ships built on the Clyde could be berthed there?

Mr. Isaacs: I hope I have made it clear that there is constant contact between myself and other Ministers concerned. Although the Clyde is in a peculiar position, we have exactly the same problem in other areas, and we must consider the situation as a whole.

Colonel Ropner: Is the Minister aware that there would be more work in the shipyards today if the shipping firms were allowed to dispose of their old ships and thereby acquire funds with which to build new ones?

Mr. Isaacs: That is one of the points under consideration.

Mr. Logan: Can my right hon. Friend see, with the other Ministers, that there is a fair allocation of work between the various ports where unemployment is taking place?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir.

Commander Noble: Can the Minister say what quantity of shipping is being repaired in Hamburg?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I can only answer on unemployment. Questions on allocation should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport.

British Legion Workshop, Preston Hall

Commander Pursey: asked the Minister of Labour the total sum granted by his Department last year for the


rehabilitation training of disabled ex-Service men at the British Legion workshops at Preston Hall, near Maidstone; what were the courses for which this grant was made; and what is the number of men at present under training in each course.

Mr. Isaacs: The arrangements with Preston Hall for grant-aiding the training of disabled ex-Service men became operative in August, 1948. Training grants from that date until 31st March, 1949, amounted to about £260. The courses involved and the numbers in training at 27th October, 1949, were: Carpentry, 11; Clerical, 6; Electrical maintenance, 3; Motor mechanic, 8; Painting and decorating, 1; Total, 29.

Commander Pursey: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that this training is really being carried out satisfactorily and that the men are not being used as cheap labour to work on the private cars of British Legion officials?

Mr. Isaacs: I have no right to intervene in these matters, but nothing has come to our notice to warrant making any comment.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will not the Minister agree that all of us are thoroughly sick of the childish vendetta of the hon. and gallant Member?

Cornwall

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Labour what are the latest figures available of unemployment in Cornwall.

Mr. Isaacs: One thousand, nine hundred and one males and 496 females at 10th October.

Oldham

Mr. Fairhurst: asked the Minister of Labour how many engineers and engineers' labourers were unemployed in Oldham on 22nd October, 1949.

Mr. Isaacs: At 13th September, the latest date for which figures are available, the number of wholly unemployed men registered at the Oldham employment exchange for employment as engineers was 20, and the number classified as engineers' labourers was five.

Mr. Fairhurst: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is much disquiet in the

district mentioned in regard to the strong rumours of possible redundancy in the textile manufacturing industry?

Mr. Isaacs: I should hope that these rumours would prove to be unfounded, because so great is the demand for textile machinery that I cannot imagine redundancy arising.

Mr. Fairhurst: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons classed as unemployed and disabled have been trained at the Remploy establishment in Gladwick, Oldham; how many are being trained at the present time; and what is the total number who have been found employment to date.

Mr. Isaacs: One hundred and twelve severely disabled workers who were previously unemployed have been employed at the Oldham Remploy Factory; such training as is necessary is given during employment and it is not possible, therefore, to state separately the number in training.

Mr. Fairhurst: Is the Minister aware that there is an expression of opinion amongst people who have been trained that it would have been far better had they not been trained, for it has affected their chances of permanent employment in the future.

Mr. Isaacs: They are, in fact, in employment. They go into that place for employment, and when they come in they are trained for the kind of work done in that employment. Out of 112 who have gone in, 77 are still working there and 35 have left for other reasons, maybe because of prolonged illness, which we can expect amongst men of the type for whom we have to provide work.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE (AGE GROUPS)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Labour what changes will the decision to reduce the strength of the armed Forces by more than 20,000 at 1st April, 1950, entail in respect of the age of call-up and the registration of age groups.

Mr. Isaacs: None, Sir.

Mr. Chetwynd: Can my right hon. Friend say how this decrease will be obtained? Will it be obtained by a more speedy release of those already in the Forces?

Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. I am asked what changes will be made in the calling-up procedure. There will be no change. There is not likely to be any change in the age groups for a considerable time.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

General Election (Poll Cards)

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied that returning officers in Scotland will be able at the next General Election to issue official poll cards in every constituency in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 16 of the Third Schedule to the Representation of the People Act, 1948.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I have consulted the returning officers on this matter, and while I appreciate the practical difficulties involved, I have at present no reason to doubt that they will be overcome.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Would the failure to issue these cards in any constituency invalidate the election in that constituency?

Mr. Woodburn: That is a hypothetical question, but I do not anticipate any failure.

Disabled Persons' Camp, Perthshire

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when it is proposed to close down the camp for displaced persons at Balhary, Perthshire; whether he is aware of the resentment and alarm occasioned locally by the behaviour of some of the inmates of this camp; and why appropriate disciplinary powers are not given to the official in charge.

Mr. Woodburn: In view of the continuing need of accommodation for the agricultural workers who are hired out to farmers in the district, I cannot give any indication at present as to when it may be possible to close this camp. I have made local inquiry and find no evidence at all of resentment and alarm having been caused locally by the behaviour of the men who live in the camp.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his information is totally incorrect, and that women and girls in that neighbourhood will not go along that road after dark when these people are going back? Will he please look into it, because it is very serious? Does he also realise that the labour itself is thoroughly unsatisfactory?

Mr. Woodburn: We have consulted the Provost of Alyth, the police constable, and some of the ministers of the church. Far from making the same complaints as the hon. and gallant Gentleman, they tend to resent the suggestion that these men have behaved improperly and, therefore, the source of information of the hon. and gallant Gentleman must be quite different. If he will let me know the source of that information, I may be able to check it, because the people in the district evidently have not heard of it.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question, "why appropriate disciplinary powers are not given to the official in charge," because they are nil?

Mr. Woodburn: There is no necessity, curiously enough, in the camp for any discipline such as the Question refers to. They naturally have ordinary discipline with regard to work.

Contraceptives (Slot Machine Sales)

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take to prevent the sale of contraceptives from slot machines in Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: It is open to any town or county council in Scotland to make by-laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives from automatic machines in its area, and the Scottish Home Department will assist any local authority which asks for advice about the most suitable form of such by-laws. The by-laws would be subject to my confirmation, and I will be prepared to confirm any which are properly made in suitable form.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that very few people in Scotland know of the existence of these machines? Will he give an undertaking not to circularise local authorities in order to advertise them? Is he also aware that very few


people knew of these machines until the protest broadcast by the Archbishop of Canterbury? Will he suggest to the Archbishop that he should not advertise them?

Major Guy Lloyd: Is it not a fact that as yet, there are none of these machines in Scotland? Would the right hon. Gentleman confirm that?

Mr. Woodburn: I am sorry I cannot confirm that. My information, although I have not heard of the machines before, is that they have been in existence there for 20 years.

Spectacles (Priority)

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will arrange for priority in the supply of spectacles under the National Health Service scheme to persons who have only one eye.

Mr. Woodburn: While such cases would not automatically obtain priority this condition would certainly be a factor in assessing the need for priority in any particular case.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a very good case for introducing priority in cases of this kind?

Mr. Woodburn: As the hon. and galland Gentleman knows very well, there are some people who can see more with one eye than other people can with two.

River Pollution (Prevention)

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to secure the cleansing of such Scottish rivers as are at present badly polluted.

Mr. Woodburn: The administration of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts is in the hands of local authorities and I have no power of enforcement. Within the limits of the capital investment programme, however, I am prepared to approve works for the prevention of pollution whether in the form of sewage purification plant or outfall to the sea.

Mr. MacPherson: Would the Secretary of State agree that the amount of untreated sewage still discharged into the

rivers is sufficient to call for very strong enforcement of the Act?

Mr. Woodburn: I have no powers in that direction. I should be very glad to encourage and help any local authority which is so disposed.

Mr. Rankin: In view of the fact that many local authorities are failing in their duty in this respect, would my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of creating one pollution authority so that we may have a uniform approach to this problem?

Mr. Woodburn: There is a subcommittee of the Water Advisory Committee at present considering the question of the pollution of rivers, and when their report comes along it may perhaps make some recommendation of a practical nature. In the meantime, if my hon. Friend will give me the particular cases referred to I can consider them.

Mr. Mathers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he requires in this connection is more authority to deal with pollution, and if that is so, if he has not the time before then, will he, when he comes back as Secretary of State for Scotland after the next Election, bring in stronger legislation?

Tuberculosis (Vaccine)

Mr. M. MacPherson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the present arrangements for the use of B.C.G. vaccine as a preventive measure against tuberculosis.

Mr. Woodburn: Regional Hospital Boards are arranging to offer B.C.G. vaccination to hospital nurses and medical students. All local health authorities have been invited to arrange, on the advice of the appropriate chest physician, for the B.C.G. vaccination of contacts of persons suffering from tuberculosis.

Mr. MacPherson: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate any difficulty in obtaining the necessary supplies of this vaccine?

Mr. Woodburn: It does not exist in mass form, but my hon. Friend will be interested to know that his own county was the first to make application for this, and arrangements have been made to fly this material from Denmark for use in Stirling on 17th November.

Licensing of Boars

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will identify the instrument by which he appointed the day from which the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1931, applied in Scotland to pigs as it applied to cattle, stating the date of the instrument and the day appointed; and why he took action with regard to pigs in purported exercise of power under the said Act before the day appointed.

Mr. Woodburn: The Instrument by which I appointed the day from which the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Bulls) Act, 1931, applied in Scotland to pigs as it applied to cattle is Statutory Instrument 1949 No. 1911 (S. 131), entitled the Licensing of Boars (Application to Scotland) Order, 1949. This Instrument was made on 12th October, 1949, and fixed 24th October, 1949, as the appointed day. Prior to 24th October, 1949, I took action with regard to the licensing of boars by virtue of the Improvement of Live Stock (Licensing of Boars) (Scotland) Regulations, 1946.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the Secretary of State agree that for him to take any such action before the appointed day, which was last week, was ultra vires, and will he now say upon what statutory authority he took action?

Mr. Woodburn: If I took action under an Order which existed it was intra vires. The hon. Gentleman is talking about a different Order.

Sir J. Mellor: But it was only possible to apply the provisions of the Act to pigs from a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State. That was not until last week.

Mr. Woodburn: I must call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that we make legislation here; we do not interpret it.

Fish Control

Lady Tweedsmuir: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the flat rate transport system for fish will be retained when price control is lifted; and at what date will fish become decontrolled.

Mr. Woodburn: I regret that I cannot at present add to the statement made by the Prime Minister on 24th October.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Will not the Secretary of State agree that the fishing industry in the north is seriously disturbed at the possible harmful effects of the removal of the flat rate transport system and that an early decision is therefore necessary? Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when he will be able to give the result of his investigations, as he has had this matter before him for a very long time?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Woodburn: I shook my head to indicate that I could not.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the flat rate and price control are not inseparably associated, and that the abolition of the flat rate would ruin the fishing trade in Aberdeen, causing great unemployment and suffering there? Will he give an assurance that the flat rate will not be abandoned?

Mr. Woodburn: With regard to the first part of the question the Government are aware of that.

Economy Measures

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how the proposed economy reductions are likely to affect Scotland;
(2) what is his estimate of the economy likely to be effected by the proposed penny increase in meals for schoolchildren;
(3) what is his estimate of the sums that will be saved in Scotland by the proposed reductions in conveyance of schoolchildren.

Mr. William Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how the Scottish hydro-electricity schemes will be affected by the economy measures recently announced;
(2) what effect the Government's economic measures recently announced will have on the Scottish housing programme.

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what effects the Government's recently announced economic measures will have in Scotland;
(2) which provisions of the Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act will be deferred; and when those remaining will come into operation.

Mr. Woodburn: Scotland will, of course, make its contribution to the economy measures and detailed arrangements for doing so are at present being worked out.
In the fields of capital investment for which I am responsible I anticipate an overall reduction in the rate of investment of the order of £6,000,000. So far as housing is concerned I am satisfied that considerable reductions in the price of houses could be achieved and I propose to effect savings by permitting a larger proportion of three-apartment houses in accordance with local needs and desires and by accepting certain proposals for modifications in design. I must also withdraw the relaxations I made recently in regard to the issue of private licences. By this means I hope that there may be no obstacle to the building of the largest possible number of local authority houses.
As regards hydro-electric development the commencement of work on certan new schemes will be postponed for a period but no interference with existing schemes is contemplated.
Economies are also to be effected in the revenue expenditure of my Department; and those for 1950–51 are being adjusted in the formulation of the estimates for that year. As regards school meals the increase of 1d. on the normal charge of 5d. per meal is expected to save £250,000 in a full year, but pending consultation with local authorities I am not in a position to make any estimate of possible savings in the cost of transport of pupils.
As regards legal aid, I am considering, in consultations with my right hon. and learned Friends, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Lord Advocate, which provisions of the Act should be deferred.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can arrangements be made to have all these revised Estimates considered by the Scottish Grand Committee?

Mr. Woodburn: That will occur in due course.

Mr. Willis: When consideration of the legal aid scheme is likely to be completed, will my right hon. Friend make an announcement about it, because there is considerable interest in it?

Mr. Woodburn: I quite agree, but hon. Members will understand that any cuts which there are to be, are being made

without injuring any of the vital life of the nation and a delicate operation of that kind cannot be done in a rough-shod manner.

Mr. Ross: Is my right hon. Friend proposing to circularise the local authorities with regard to the effect which this announcement will have on their next year's building schemes, and will he tell me if he has considered restricting unnecessary building by reducing the financial limits on work to be done without a licence?

Mr. Woodburn: I would refer my hon. Friend to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in which that point was expressly dealt with.

Colonel Hutchison: As it is clearly impossible to consider the implications of these changes on the Scottish economy from the way the right hon. Gentleman has expressed the matter this afternoon, will he produce them in a more detailed form so that we can consider the effect on housing and trade and all the other effects which they will have?

Mr. Woodburn: They will all come before the House in detailed form as revised Estimates.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Will my right hon. Friend say if local authorities will be able to raise the penny for the extra cost of meals from the rates instead of from the parents?

Mr. Woodburn: I should require notice of that question.

Sir W. Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a very considerable volume of public opinion in Scotland considers that Scotland has no dollar deficiency but is a valuable exporter? Has he represented these views to his colleagues in the Cabinet?

Mr. Woodburn: I am sorry to say that in some of these matters some Scottish opinion is not as well informed as I should like it to be.

Sir W. Darling: Will the right hon. Gentleman put before the House figures showing the export surplus, if any, which Scotland has?

Mr. Woodburn: Since a great many of the people who talk about Scottish exports always forget to consider Scottish imports, it is not very easy to satisfy them.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Has the right hon. Gentleman tried to co-ordinate the extent to which the legal aid scheme will be introduced into Scotland with the extent to which it is being introduced into England so that there will be no unfair disparity as between one country and another?

Mr. Woodburn: One of the difficulties about these matters is that the criminal and other procedure in Scotland is entirely different from that in England and that any attempt to assimilate them would make confusion worse confounded.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Reverting to the supplementary question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison), would it be possible for the Secretary of State to lay before the House some sort of paper showing the effects of this because it will be a long time before the Estimates come out? Are we to understand that the 25,000 cut in housing estimated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not to apply in the case of Scotland?

Mr. Woodburn: The cut mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a financial cut. It was for the purpose of convenience converted into what it meant in terms of housing. It does not necessarily mean a reduction in housing but a saving in housing.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Does not that make it all the more necessary that the right hon. Gentleman should lay before the House some more detailed information. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made a most definite statement that a cut, not in money but in housing, of 25,000 houses would be made. Now we are informed by the Government that that may not be so. Again, I press the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he or the Government as a whole can lay before the House some paper indicating what was really meant by the Chancellor's statement.

Mr. Woodburn: I believe that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is mistaken in the sense that the Estimates of different Ministers deal with the finance of these matters. The question of how that saving is made must be left to be worked out in regard to each case. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it quite clear that the saving would mean

practically no alteration to local authority housing. He said there would be no specific or no marked decrease in local authority housing. Therefore, the saving must be worked out in such a way as to comply with that condition.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Even so, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not make the statement in terms of finance but in terms of houses. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he can elucidate the statement, because I am sure that the House was certainly left under the impression that it was a reduction in numbers of houses? The Minister of Health and others have said most definitely—

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not your opinion that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is not asking a question but is trying to conduct a cross-examination? Will you call him to Order?

Lieut-Colonel Elliot: Obviously the House is anxious for further information, and I am asking the Secretary of State whether he or the Prime Minister can clear up the matter by laying before the House some statement in figures which the House can consider, because there is obviously great confusion from the verbal statements which have been made.

Mr. Woodburn: I thought that my answer had cleared up any confusion there was in the mind of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister presented a list of savings which would be effected in money terms. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer expanded that in his speech, and in order to convey to hon. Members what £35 million meant on the average price of a house, he gave a figure, but how that saving is to be effected will be worked out in detail. As I have stated, we are hoping that that saving can be effected, in Scotland at least, without interfering with the number of houses which local authorities will build.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Are we to take it that the statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were merely metaphors?

Local Government Officers (Salaries)

Mr. Carmichael: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the discontent amongst Scottish local government officials at the increasing disparity between their salaries and those paid to officials serving on many Government Boards; and if he will take the necessary action to stop any further increases in the salaries of chief officials on Boards under his jurisdiction.

Mr. Woodburn: I am aware that comparisons have been made between the salaries of local government officers and those of the officers of public boards. In the case of nationalised industries, the fixing of staff salaries is a matter for each board. In the case of the regional hospital boards, salaries are regulated by Whitley machinery.

Disabled Ex-Service Men (Training)

Commander Pursey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the cost to his Department of sending a disabled ex-naval man, of whom he has details, from Scotland to the British Legion workshop for tuberculosis cases at Preston Hall, near Maidstone, on 12th September.

Mr. Woodburn: The total cost involved in sending this man to Preston Hall amounted to £14 0s. 8d., which was paid by the local health authority responsible for his care and after-care, under Section 27 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, 1947. This expenditure will rank for 50 per cent. grant from the Exchequer.

Commander Pursey: Why was it necessary to send this non-T.B. case from Ross and Cromarty 400 miles to a private, charitable T.B. rehabilitation workshop in Kent, where he was kept for only one day and then returned home? Is it not possible to rehabilitate Scottish ex-naval men in Scotland?

Mr. Woodburn: This place was considered, in the circumstances, to be the best for the man to go to. Whether it is in England or Scotland ex-naval men should, we think, have the best treatment possible.

Court of Session

Mr. Rankin: asked the Lord Advocate if, in the interests of economy, he will take the steps necessary to enable the Court of Session to go on circuit when hearing cases, as does the High Court of Justiciary.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): The Royal Commission on the Court of Session concluded that economy would not result from such an arrangement, and with that conclusion I agree. Moreover, the Royal Commission expressed the view that the policy of decentralisation applied to the Court of Session would be a destructive one, and I see no reason to differ from their conclusion.

Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a litigant in a Court of Session action has to engage solicitors in his town of residence and solicitors in Edinburgh, and that all expert witnesses have to be taken through to Edinburgh, all of which means that time and money are consumed? Now that the Government are paying for all litigation does not that procedure mean sending up the costs, and can I press him to look at this matter again?

The Lord Advocate: Those were the very facts which the Commission had in view when they came to their conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (ARTIFICIAL LIMBS)

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Minister of Pensions what is the time now taken to supply artificial legs and artificial arms from the date of measurement and order; and the average time now taken for repairs to artificial limbs sent to the main repair centres of his Department.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Simmons): The time now taken to supply limbs to patients requiring artificial legs for the first time is normally 13 weeks. The average time over all classes of patients including those requiring spare limbs is 36 weeks for legs and 30 weeks for arms. The average time taken to repair artificial limbs at the main repair centres is eight weeks.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Although I do not wish to advocate the setting up of another priority class in this country, does not the Minister think that some priority should be given to men and women who need artificial limbs in order to be self-supporting, and that priority of repair should be given to those who need an artificial limb repaired in order that they may keep their jobs?

Mr. Simmons: Yes, Sir, but the increase of work due to the National Health Service scheme has created difficulties for the industry, and some delay has been unavoidable. We have adopted a scheme of priorities in favour of patients requiring limbs for the first time, and of those requiring limbs to be repaired to enable them to maintain their employment or in urgent need of them for medical reasons.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the Minister aware of the various implications of the delay of which he has spoken? Is he aware that men are having to leave their jobs as a result of having to go without limbs, which have taken months to repair?

Mr. Simmons: I have already stated that we have now reviewed the whole position and made priorities which give those who need a limb to maintain their employment, priority over other classes. I would point out that the making of an artificial limb is not a matter of mass production. The limbs are all done by individual craftsmen, and a number of fittings are involved so that the man who is to get a limb will have one on which he can walk without discomfort.

Mr. Tolley: What steps are being taken to increase production, or materially to reduce the amount of time men have to wait?

Mr. Simmons: A new factory has already started production of artificial limbs. The demand for artificial limbs is now declining. We have reached the peak, but, coinciding with that decline in demand, production is increasing.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: Cannot the Minister do anything about the supply of new artificial limbs and by looking into the repair question, particularly in regard to people being out of work because they cannot get their limbs repaired?

Mr. Simmons: The same priorities apply to the repair of artificial limbs as apply to the provision of a new first limb. The period of repair at the present time is about eight weeks.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: While a man is waiting for the artificial limb is he supplied with anything in the nature of crutches?

Mr. Simmons: Oh, yes. A pensioner who cannot use his artificial limb is supplied with crutches. In the majority of ex-Service cases the men have a spare limb in addition to the original artificial limb.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: asked the Minister of Pensions the number of limbless ex-Service men who have been issued approved improved limbs since the setting up of the Ministry's Department of Research and Experiment in 1945.

Mr. Simmons: It is impossible to give the figure asked for by the noble Lord. British artificial limbs have reached a high state of perfection and have a worldwide reputation and during the last few years improvements have been mainly in the nature of refinements, which as they have been approved, have been embodied in new limbs. On 23rd May, my right hon. Friend gave the noble Lord up-to-date information about the suction socket limb, which has been undergoing prolonged trial. My right hon. Friend would like to pay a tribute to the limb manufacturers who are unremitting in their search for improvements.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is yet in a position to say when the suction socket limb will be approved? It has been under trial for some time now and I believe it is very satisfactory, or so I am informed by those who have tried it.

Mr. Simmons: As my right hon. Friend pointed out in his reply of 24th May to the noble Lord, we naturally wish to issue the limb generally only when we are satisfied that every possible improvement has been made. We have now a further 100 patients fitted with the limb for trial. That makes 150 patients now wearing the suction socket limb on trial. Production is a much slower job than the production of the ordinary limb. We hesitate to impede the production of


ordinary limbs too much until we are satisfied that the suction socket limb will be really satisfactory.

Oral Answers to Questions — YANGTSE OPERATIONS (MEDAL)

Commander Noble: asked the Prime Minister whether approval has been given for the issue of a General Service Medal for service in operations on the River Yangtse earlier this year.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. His Majesty has approved proposals for the grant of the Naval General Service Medal for specified service on the River Yangtse between 20th April and 31st July, 1949. A short White Paper on the subject is available in the Vote Office.

Air-Commodore Harvey: While I appreciate what the Prime Minister has said, might I ask him to consider at the same time a suitable award to the airmen who flew on the Berlin air lift?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will put a question down on that matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL WEALTH (DISTRIBUTION)

Mr. Henry Strauss: asked the Prime Minister whether the statement of the Minister of Health, in his speech at Rhymney on 16th October, 1949, that a further redistribution of wealth is to take place represents the policy of His Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to what was said on this subject by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his Budget speech last April.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Prime Minister aware that this policy was stated by the Minister of Health, and reported in the "Daily Herald" and elsewhere, and that the Minister gave as his reason that redistribution is also retribution? Does the Prime Minister agree with that, and does he wish it to be brought to the attention of those who are being invited to save?

The Prime Minister: It is not a statement of policy to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. If he will refer to the

statement of policy that I have quoted to him, he will get the full statement.

Mr. Warbey: Does not the Prime Minister think that the case for a further distribution of capital wealth has received dramatic emphasis from the recent example of Sir John Black, managing director of Standard Motors, who recently received a tax-free gift of shares to the value of £100,000?

Oral Answers to Questions — FESTIVAL OF BRITAIN

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Lord President of the Council what arrangements are being made for American firms to exhibit in the 1951 Exhibition; how much space has been allotted for this purpose; and how much of this space has so far been booked.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The hon. and gallant Member is under a misapprehension. The Festival of Britain, 1951, of which the South Bank Exhibition to which he presumably refers is a part, is to be a national display of the British contribution to civilisation in the arts and sciences. The Festival exhibitions will not therefore be trade fairs and no space will be available for any firms or organisations, whether foreign or British.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Income Tax (Inquiries)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to make a report of the investigation into cases of single agricultural workers living in Government hostels who have been paying 2s. a week Income Tax instead of the 6s. a week tax paid by men with comparable wages who live at home; and how many cases are involved.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The liability to Income Tax in these cases is governed by the general Income Tax law under which free board and lodging which an employer undertakes to provide for a warge earner is not income for taxation purposes. I regret that I cannot say how many cases are involved.

Mr. Osborne: Could the Financial Secretary tell the House whether any


steps are being taken on the remarks made in the Eleventh Report of the Select Committee on Estimates of the agricultural services where it was stated that this matter had been put before the Treasury?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I cannot add anything to what I have said already in reply to the Question.

Mr. Osborne: You do not know.

Mr. David Renton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that His Majesty's Inspectors of Taxes have been asking taxpayers, especially those who have cashed appreciable amounts in the Post Office Savings Bank or sold Defence Bonds, how their capital has been re-invested; and whether these inquiries by the Income Tax officials are in accordance with instructions given by him.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: As the hon. Member will appreciate, Inspectors of Taxes have to make such inquiries as are necessary to ensure that liability to tax is correctly determined. If the hon. Member will let me have particulars of the cases which he has in mind, I will be glad to look into them.

Mr. Renton: Bearing in mind the need of the Government to encourage the Savings Movement, will the right bon. Gentleman give an undertaking that people who invest in Post Office Savings Bank deposits are not discouraged from so doing by the fact that if they disinvest or decide to change their investment they may be submitted to an inquisition by the Treasury? Will he state what justification there is in the case of Savings Bank deposits for this quite unwarrantable intrusion into people's private affairs?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Captain John Crowder: Is it true that the taxpayer is not bound to answer any of these questions?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: One answer to that is that neither is the Minister, but the Inland Revenue authorities must do their duty and I can say, I think, without fear of contradiction, that they do it with circumspection. However, if it is necessary, they must be able to follow through

with an individual taxpayer an investment which has been changed and which, may have gone wrong.

Hon. Members: Gone wrong!

Sir David Robertson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why an official of the Customs and Excise called on Maxwell Bros., Ltd., an old-established Streatham company of 594, Sreatham High Road, and stated to an employee that it had been discovered that the company had a mortgage on one of its properties and that he had been sent to inquire whether the company was solvent, as any Purchase Tax due would have a prior claim.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Inquiries of this nature have to be made on occasions in order to protect the Revenue, but in this case the inquiry was unnecessary, and I regret that the mistake occurred. I should point out, however, that the only employee with whom the Customs and Excise officer discussed the matter was the company's Secretary.

Sir D. Robertson: Arising out of that reply, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this firm have never been liable at any time for Purchase Tax and that each quarter they have made the proper return certifying that that was so; and will he take immediate steps to bring an end to this unwarrantable snooping into the affairs of private firms?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: We have been looking into this and suitable steps have now been taken to see that mistakes of this kind do not occur in future.

Agricultural Tractors (Taxation)

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider the proposed withdrawal of the 5s tax concession on agricultural tractors which is notified to take place on 30th June, 1950.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am receiving a deputation on this subject from the National Farmers' Union in the course of the next few days, but I am bound to say that as at present advised my right hon. and learned Friend feels that the withdrawal of the wartime concession is fully justified.

Mr. Amory: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that such a sharp increase from 5s. to £12 is a tax on productive equipment and as such is undesirable, and is a discouragement to the fullest use of mechanisation? Furthermore, is it not likely to fall more hardly on the smaller and less prosperous farmer who, in the course of running his farm, must sometimes haul a load and cannot afford a wide range of mechanical equipment?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: This concession was only made during the war because of the general shortage of vehicles and it could not go on for ever. As it is, farmers have an advantage over ordinary commercial users and there is no reason in our view why it should continue indefinitely.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Could the right hon. Gentleman say under what authority this concession is withdrawn, and whether it is a matter which could be discussed by this House?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The concession was withdrawn by a Statutory Rule and Order and I cannot for the moment charge my memory as to whether it is still open to be discussed.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this concession has been continuing for something like five years after the end of the war, and has come to be a basis of the costings of production of agriculture and that it will create grave hardship if it is now withdrawn on the excuse that it was merely a wartime provision?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely considerations of that kind are taken into account at the annual review of prices.

Mr. Vane: When the right hon. Gentleman receives the deputation, will he try to distinguish between tractors which may be used to haul some hundreds of tons of sugar beet on the road and those that make only occasional journeys, most of which are in the possession of small farmers?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think the hon. Gentleman can take it that we shall know exactly what is being discussed.

Austrian Loan (Italian Liability)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reply he has received to the further representations which he made to the Italian Government to use part of their sterling credit to end their default on the drawn bonds of the Austrian Conversion Loan in British hands.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I am sorry to say that the Italian Government still refuse to acknowledge their liability.

Mr. Keeling: But is it not a fact that Italy acknowledged her liability but said she could not pay yet?

Mr. Jay: The Italian Government are not willing at present to carry out their liability, and we have made representations to the effect that we think this liability should be carried out.

Mr. Keeling: Have the Government drawn the attention of Italy to the fact that her sterling balances recently totalled as much as £40 million, and have they also reminded her that our treatment of her financially since the war has been exceptionally generous?

Exchange Control (Medical Advisory Committee)

Colonel Dower: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now make known the names of the members of the Exchange Control Medical Advisory Committee who decide whether to approve or disapprove for applications for urgent medical treatment abroad.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. As my right hon. and learned Friend informed the hon. Member for Howdenshire (Mr. Odey) on 25th January last, he does not think that it would be advisable to disclose the names of the members of the Committee.

Colonel Dower: Since these decisions may well affect the lives of the applicants, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that in those cases one should know the names of the medical officers on this Committee?

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Would the right hon. Gentleman say if this Committee ever meet and whether they ever


consider the cases that are put forward? Are they just sent through the mail or are the individual members of the Committee telephoned?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: They certainly meet, and the House was so informed in reply to a question to my right hon. and learned Friend not long ago.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: Once a year?

British Chambers of Commerce (Resolution)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the resolution taken by the British Chambers of Commerce at Johannesburg at their congress in September, 1948, with regard to the London Chamber of Commerce's solution for balancing international trade which was forwarded to him; and if he is yet in a position to announce what action he proposes to take on it.

Mr. Jay: The proposals to which my hon. Friend refers, like other proposals for balancing international trade, will be borne in mind in formulating the policy of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Stokes: That does not realty answer my Question. For the purpose of asking my supplementary question I must assume that my hon. Friend has studied the correspondence between myself and the Chancellor. What I want to know is, were these matters considered at the recent conference and, if they were not, why were they not?

Mr. Jay: These matters have been studied by the British Government. We have many schemes of this kind laid before us; many of them contain useful and constructive ideas, and we have studied this one, amongst others.

Stock Exchanges, London and Johannesburg

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why His Majesty's Government made no approach to the Government of South Africa to endeavour to arrange that the London and Johannesburg Stock Exchanges should close simultaneously on 19th September, when devaluation took place, in order to avoid the wild and unofficial fluctuations in gold share prices which did, in fact, occur.

Mr. Jay: The Government of South Africa were informed in advance that the London Stock Exchange would be closed on 19th September. Any question of closing the Johannesburg Stock Exchange was for the South African Government.

Rubber Purchases (Stock-piling, U.S.A.)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what quantity of rubber has been purchased from British territories in South-East Asia by the United States since 1st January, 1949, for the purpose of stock-piling; what agreement was reached in Washington regarding any increased rate of purchase for this purpose; and how much is likely to be so purchased up to the end of this year.

Mr. Jay: Total exports of rubber from these territories to the United States from 1st January to 31st August were 164,908 tons but the United States Government does not publish figures of the quantities taken into the stockpile. As regards the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the communiqué issued after the Tripartite Talks in Washington (Cmd. 7788) to which I have nothing to add. As regards the third part, this depends on United States Government policy and I can form no estimate, although I am glad to say the United States have recently announced that they are resuming their purchases.

Mr. Gammans: May I ask the hon. Gentleman two questions? First, is he aware that after the Washington talks we were given to understand that there were to be considerable purchases of rubber for stock-piling purposes; could he say if those expectations are likely to be realised to the extent on which the hon. Gentleman and the Government banked? Secondly, is the hon. Gentleman aware that since devaluation the dollar price of rubber has gone down and that, therefore, we are getting less dollars for our rubber than before devaluation?

Mr. Jay: In answer to the first part of the question, as I said, stock-piling purchases are being resumed—

Mr. Gammans: To what extent?

Mr. Jay: In answer to the second part of the question, I am quite aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVANTS (POLITICAL ACTIVITIES)

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

MR. W. R. WILLIAMS: —To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he now has any further statement to make concerning the Masterman Report on the Political Activities of Civil Servants.

MR. DOUGLAS HOUGHTON: —To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has now any further statement to make concerning the Masterman Report on civil rights for civil servants.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: With permission, I should like to answer Questions No. 61 and No. 67. As my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council announced on 28th July, the Government agreed to take no action for the time being to give effect to the recommendations of the Masterman Report. The Government have since taken account of the repretations made by the National Staff Side at a Meeting of the National Whitley Council on 22nd July, and have now decided to give immediate effect to that part of the Report which frees certain categories of civil servants from existing restrictions. For the rest of the Civil Service they have decided to instruct each Department to maintain in force until the end of next year the practice which prevailed before the Report was received, with a view to the matter being further reconsidered towards the end of that time.
The Staff Side of the National Whitley Council have been informed of this decision and immediate steps will be taken to put it into effect.

Mr. Williams: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that statement, and particularly for that part which relates to what we call the "minor and manipulative grades," may I ask if he is aware that one other part of the statement will not be regarded as quite so satisfactory by Members of this House and the people concerned? I refer to the other grades in the Civil Service. It was the desire of Members in all parts of the House that there should be the maximum possible political liberty for all civil servants. Will the Financial Secretary ask his right hon. and learned Friend if he will consider discussing further this aspect with the National Staff Side?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. At the proper time, as I have already said, this matter will be reconsidered. Any suggestions which the Staff Side may have to make will then be fully considered and taken into account.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Does the statement of my right hon. Friend mean that these discussions, in which the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council have already been invited to take part, are now to be deferred for a further 12 months, and if that is the intention behind the statement will my right hon. Friend reconsider it and authorise the discussions to proceed immediately?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. I have indicated that the reconsideration will have to take place towards the end of next year and I am afraid I cannot go back on that statement.

Mr. Gammans: Does the statement of the right hon. Gentleman mean that, for the time being at any rate, there are no outstanding differences between the Government and the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I did not say that. I said that so far as nearly half a million civil servants are concerned, the report will be implemented. So far as the remainder are concerned, the present practice will be continued until the matter is reconsidered in the course of a year or so.

Mr. Gammans: Which are the half million?

Mr. Carmichael: Does my right hon. Friend intend issuing the Report so that the people concerned and those interested will know in detail those who are being considered in a favourable light and those who are not?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: The Report is now in the Vote Office and my hon. Friend can get a copy at any time.

Mr. Lipson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why it is necessary to postpone the discussions for another 12 months? The reason is not clear. Cannot they be undertaken earlier?

Mr. Tolley: Will my right hon. Friend give really serious consideration to the question of this long postponement?


Surely, there is no purpose behind it other than that possibly in 12 months' time the same decision which he is suggesting will be re-introduced, and in view of the uncertainty, will my right hon. Friend now say that there is no other purpose behind the postponement?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I will, of course, see that my right hon. and learned Friend is made aware of the questions now being asked and the point of view that has been expressed. I must make it quite clear, however, that in the statement I have made, a great advance has been achieved and that so far as other grades are concerned the status quo will meanwhile continue.

Mr. Williams: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there is a very strong feeling in the House that now is the opportune time to resolve this problem, which has been exercising the minds of the people in the Service for many years; and what purpose can there be in deferring it for another 12 months or more?

BILL PRESENTED

WAR DAMAGED SITES BILL

"to enable local authorities to take possession of or do work on certain war damaged land; to authorise the conversion of cost of works payments in certain cases; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid"; presented by Mr. Bevan; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. Woodburn and Mr. Blenkinsop; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 194.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 103.

Division No. 265.]
AYES
[3.30 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Grenfell, D. R.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Corlett, Dr. J.
Grey, C. F


Albu, A. H.
Cove, W. G.
Grierson, E.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Crawley, A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)


Alpass, J. H.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Cullen, Mrs.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden


Attewell, H. C.
Daines, P.
Guy, W. H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Austin, H. Lewis
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hale, Leslie


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil


Ayles, W. H.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Hardy, E. A.


Balfour, A.
Deer, G.
Harrison, J.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Delargy, H. J.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville.


Barton, C.
Diamond, J.
Herbison, Miss M.


Battley, J. R.
Dobbie, W.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Dodds, N. N.
Horabin, T. L.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Houghton, Douglas


Berry, H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hoy, J.


Binns, J.
Edelman, M.
Hubbard, T.


Blackburn, A. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Blyton, W. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Boardman, H.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Bottomley, A. G.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)


Bowen, R.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)


Bramall, E. A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Ewart, R.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Fairhurst, F.
Jay, D. P. T.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Farthing, W. J.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Brown, George (Belper)
Fernyhough, E.
Jenkins, R. H.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Forman, J. C.
Keenan, W.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Kenyon, C.


Byers, Frank
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Callaghan, James
Gallacher, W.
King, E. M.


Carmichael, James
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Champion, A. J.
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Kinley, J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Gibson, C. W.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.


Cluse, W. S.
Gilzean, A.
Lavers, S.


Cocks, F. S.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Collins, V. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Cook, T. F.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)




Leonard, W.
Parkin, B. T.
Stubbs, A. E.


Leslie, J. R.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Swingler, S.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Sylvester, G. O.


Lipson, D. L.
Pearson, A.
Symonds, A. L.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Peart, T. F.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Logan, D. G.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Longden, F.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Lyne, A. W.
Popplewell, E.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


McAdam, W.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Thurtle, Ernest


McAllister, G.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Timmons, J.


McEntee, V. La T.
Price, M. Philips
Tolley, L.


McGhee, H. G.
Proctor, W. T.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


McGovern, J.
Pryde, D. J.
Usborne, Henry


Mack, J. D.
Ranger, J.
Viant, S. P.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Rankin, J.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


McKinlay, A. S.
Reeves, J.
Warbey, W. N.


Maclean, N. (Govan)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Watson, W. M.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Richards, R.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Mainwaring, W. H.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
West, D. G.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Rogers, G. H. R.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Mann, Mrs. J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Royle, C.
Wigg, George


Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Sargood, R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Mellish, R. J.
Scollan, T.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Mikardo, Ian
Scott-Elliot, W.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Mitchison, G. R.
Segal, Dr. S.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Monslow, W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Sharp, Granville
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Mort, D. L.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Moyle, A.
Shurmer, P.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Murray, J. D.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Nally, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Willis, E.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Simmons, C. J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Oldfield, W. H.
Skinnard, F. W.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Woods, G. S.


Orbach, M.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Yates, V. F.


Paget, R. T.
Snow, J. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Pannell, T. C.
Sparks, J. A.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Pargiter, G. A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)



Parker, J.
Stokes, R. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Hannan and Mr. Bowden.




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Osborne, C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baxter, A. B.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Price-White, D.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Renton, D.


Bower, N.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Challen, C.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Channon, H.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Smithers, Sir W.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Davidson, Viscountess
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


De la Bère, R.
McFarlane, C. S.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Studholme, H. G.


Drayson, G. B.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Drewe, C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Duthie, W. S.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Turton, R. H.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Maude, J. C.
Vane, W. M. F.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Mellor, Sir J.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Gammans, L. D.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Grimston, R. V.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



Harden, J. R. E.
Nicholson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harvey, Air-Comdre, A. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Colonel Wheatley and


Head, Brig. A. H.
Nutting, Anthony
Mr. Wingfield Digby.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Odey, G. W.



Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — NEW FOREST [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as respects the New Forest in the county of Southampton, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money's provided by Parliament—

(a) of the expenses of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries under the said Act;
(b) of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, being an increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session conferring functions on a highway authority other than the Minister of Transport;
(c) of any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys, being an increase attributable to provisions of the said Act of the present Session involving payments out of the Road Fund;

and to authorise the payment into the Exchequer of the receipts of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries thereunder in so far as they accrue under the provisions of the said Act of the present Session relating to enclosures for cultivation and improvement of grazing.

NEW FOREST BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(CONSTITUTION OF VERDERERS.)

The Deputy-Chairman: I understand that the Opposition would like to discuss the first two Amendments and, of course, the numerous consequential Amendments together and to reserve their right to divide on the first two.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "five," and to insert "six."
For the convenience of the Committee, if you agree, Mr. Bowles, all the other Amendments on the Order Paper down to Clause 7, page 4, line 18, could be discussed together, but we should like to have the right to divide, if necessary—that will be dependent on what the Minister says—on the first two Amendments.
The Bill proposes a new constitution for the verderers, the governing body of the New Forest. Hitherto, operating under the New Forest Act of 1877, that body has been composed of one official verderer, appointed by the Crown, who acts as chairman and six other verderers who are all elected persons. The Bill proposes certain changes in the qualification and electoral procedure of the verderers. These Amendments do not quarrel with the changes in the Bill to that extent, but the Bill goes further than merely altering the qualification of a verderer and the method of election.
It proposes to increase the number of verderers appointed by the Crown from one to five so that of the total of 10 verderers proposed, only a half, instead of six-sevenths, in future will be elected persons. When it is remembered that the elected half of the verderers does not include under this proposal the chairman, who has a casting vote, it will be seen that this is an important change. Its effect is that the balance of power, which has hitherto resided overwhelmingly with the elected verderers, is transferred to the hands of nominees of the Crown in one form or another.
The Amendment which I am moving, and the others which are being discussed at the same time, have the effect of moving the balance of power back to the hands of persons who are freely elected in accordance with the improved procedure laid down by this Bill. We propose that the elected verderers should number six instead of five and that those appointed should be three instead of five. We propose to remove one of the two nominees of the Minister of Agriculture and those to be appointed by the Forestry Commission and the Minister of Town and Country Planning. We propose to retain the power of the Minister of Agriculture to appoint what I might call an amenity verderer, and to give him power also to appoint another verderer who is specially concerned with the flora and fauna and other objects of scientific interests in the forest. The verderers would then consist of six elected and three nominated persons. One of the nominated persons would continue to be the chairman, with a casting vote as the official verderer.
We think that this sort of body would be more in keeping with the tradition


and the needs of the New Forest. After all, the powers of the Crown and its various agencies are already well safeguarded by statute. Those statutes are binding upon the elected verderers and there is no need for the Crown to take the further protection of also having its nominees on the board. I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman what the nominees of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Town and Country Planning are to do that they cannot do already without being appointed verderers?
The right hon. Gentleman said during the Second Reading Debate that the duty of the one who is to be appointed to represent the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries would be to advise the other verderers on questions of technical agricultural interest. But people can advise without being verderers. Even the Cabinet receives advice from experts from time to time, I presume, on technical, financial and military matters, but it can take that advice without making its advisers Cabinet Ministers. I should have thought that without making the agricultural expert a verderer his good advice would be freely available to the elected body which I have proposed. In contrast to all the shortages which we suffer in this world, I have never found that good advice was not a superfluous commodity. There is no reason why because a man is to give technical advice, he should be made a member of the body itself.
There seems to me to be nothing in the history of the verderers to suggest that the elected persons would not be careful of the public interest. Indeed, the responsibility is firmly placed on their shoulders, and I do not see what advantage is gained in the long run by taking away this responsibility or whittling it down by the appointment of the proposed number of nominated people. It is quite clear that in the past the verderers who were elected as to six-sevenths of their number, have taken care of the public interests committed to them, and, all the evidence suggests, have struck a fair balance between the rights of the commoners, the public and the Crown.
I am aware that there has been a long history of negotiation on this matter. I have not been a party to the negotiations, I do not know what is the mind of the

Minister on these Amendments, but in whatever form the Bill emerges from our discussions, I shall join with the right hon. Gentleman in urging every one concerned to work harmoniously for the good of the Forest. But while the Bill is still before us and our duty is to scrutinise it and make such suggestions as occur to us, my hon. Friends and I have misgivings about these proposed changes in the constitution of the verderers, and we think that the scheme embodied in our Amendments is a better one.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It seems to me that in making these proposals the Government have made two errors. The first is that they have not understood what the Court of Verderers is supposed to do. The second is that in framing their proposals they have never really worked out what the result of their alterations will be.
If I may weary the House for a moment with a few words about what the Court of Verderers has always stood for, I would say that it is a body which was established in the time of William the Conqueror when these Royal forests were made. It was established for one purpose only—to see that the servants of the Crown who had charge of whatever Royal forest it might be, did not abuse those powers against the rights of the commoners and of the public. It stood impartially as an interpreter as to how far the Crown prerogative should go, but far more important as a local and immediate court to which any local resident could come and appeal if he thought that the Crown had gone too far in what was claimed as the prerogative of the Royal forest.
That was the situation of the verderers in the time of William the Conqueror. Of course, like so many things in the Middle Ages, that sort of body fell into disuse as the Royal forests became disused. That was particularly so from the time of Queen Elizabeth to Pitt. But in the case of the New Forest the verderers were recreated in 1877 by a special Act of Parliament so as to see that the last remaining Royal forest, as it had then become, should still have a body of independent people who would safeguard, from unreasonable demands of the public or the Crown, or from any quarter whatever, the small commoner in the New Forest so that he should still have his rights,


should still be able to exercise his power of pasturing cattle, etc.
No one will contradict me when I say that so far, in those years since 1877 the verderers have never had a complaint raised against them of being partial to one side or the other. The one thing that has never been said against them is that they have shown themselves prejudiced on one side or the other. As I am a verderer myself I ought to have declared my interest before I made that rather flattering remark about the court.
4.0 p.m.
Now we have something different. We have a Court of Verderers in which it is proposed to put the actual balance, so far as deliberations are concerned which result in a vote, upon the nominees of whichever Government may be in power from time to time. It is true that on the matters of enclosure this balance is left the other way, because representatives of the Minister of Agriculture and the Forestry Commission are not allowed to vote. But on all general matters the power of voting strength is now placed on the nominees, and I can only think of three reasons why this should be done.
The first is that the Minister has evidence that in the past the verderers have not done their job well. I have no evidence of that; I have heard no single complaint. If that be the reason I hope the Minister will tell us today. The second reason is that there is some new task that the Court of Verderers will have to perform in the future and that the Minister feels he must have these nominees for this new task. Again I have never heard of any such new job. So far it has never been mooted in another place, either on the floor of that other place or in the Select Committee. It may be that the Minister has something of that nature in view, in which case again I hope he will tell us.
There is a third reason, and I am afraid this is the truth; that the Minister wishes to have these nominees because in their appointment he sees a way of controlling further the New Forest. That is the only reason I can see, and in fact I must repeat that Lord Robinson, speaking as chief Government witness in another place—

The Deputy-Chairman: I considered that last time after the quotation had been

made, because I thought that Lord Robinson was speaking in reference to the report of 1947 and giving evidence there; but I understand it was a speech he made in another place, and therefore I do not think he should be quoted.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I was proposing to refer not to a speech, but to evidence given before the Select Committee. I thought that as that evidence was given as the principal witness on behalf of the Government, it could be quoted. Whether the evidence given in another place before the Select Committee is quotable or not will make a great difference to the Debate this afternoon.

Mr. Shackleton: Before you answer that point, Mr. Bowles, may I submit that we are entitled to make use of evidence given before the Select Committee. It seems to me that the essence of the Select Committee is to provide facts on which judgment can be made and we ought to be allowed to quote from it.

The Deputy-Chairman: If it is evidence and not a speech, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is in Order.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It seems to me that the evidence given by Lord Robinson tended to the view that the Minister in fact, for one reason or another—and we shall later be able to discuss those reasons—was to have sufficient power on the Court of Verderers to see that his view was carried through. What we have tried to do is to see that the Court of Verderers, against which no complaint has been raised and against whose functions and the execution of their duties no complaint has been raised, shall carry on. We do agree particularly with a desire to see that the flora and fauna and other amenities are preserved and that the Minister shall appoint one verderer to cover amenity values.
We have gone further and taken a phrase from the National Parks Bill so as to get yet another verderer who shall be concerned with the wider aspect of both nature and amenities. We think, that by that means we shall have a court which will truly represent not only the local interests, but also the interests of the public, and a court such as in the past has done a good job fairly and equitably without fear or favour.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I have listened to all the arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) and the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) and I remain unimpressed. The Baker Committee devoted many months of valuable time to this extremely difficult problem. They consulted not only local interests, including verderers, but also national bodies, and they recommended that there should be 10 verderers in addition to the official verderer, of whom four should be elected and the remaining six appointed.
The committee were probably right, but in deference to local opinion I felt they had gone a little too far. I therefore decided to fix the figures at five elected verderers, the chairman, and four others to represent the Ministry of Agriculture, the Forestry Commission and the local planning authority—in this case that would be the county of Southampton—who are to represent the amenity interests.
It seems to me having changed the figures from those recommended by the Baker Committee, that was a fairly sound balance for a Court of Verderers to look after not only the interests of local commoners and the rest, but also national interests. After all, the New Forest is not an exclusive preserve for local commoners. It is a great national park. There are national interests within it and the nation has paid year by year to preserve those interests. I see no reason at all for departing from this arrangement which we reached after many months of consultation and negotiation.
These arrangements, taken in conjunction with certain other provisions of the Bill, would take away the right of the verderer representing the Forestry Commission to vote on enclosures for afforestation. We leave it entirely in the hands of the five elected verderers to decide whether or not there shall be enclosure. It seems to me that the same thing applies to the Ministry of Agriculture representative. I think therefore that the concession we made in another place makes that a workable and well-balanced constitution for the new Court of Verderers.
I was rather shocked to hear the right hon. Gentleman talk about the balance

of power of this Court of Verderers. I should have thought that when the 10 persons came together it would not be a question of division on party lines or special interests, but that they would come together for the purpose of preserving the amenities and caring for the grazing and woodlands and the outside interest of visitors, and that on such things a division would be a very rare thing indeed. My original conception was that the Court of Verderers would come together to serve both the local and national interests at the same time and that few or no divisions on the lines indicated by the right hon. Gentleman would take place.
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of subsection (4) of Clause 12 and subsection (6) of Clause 14, because that does dispose, more or less, of his argument about the balance of power. Subsection (4) of Clause 12 says:
The verderer appointed by the Forestry Commissioners shall not vote on any question arising on a presentment under this section.
Therefore, the elected verderers become the absolute majority and there can be no enclosures for afforestation purposes without the consent of the verderers. The same remarks apply to Clause 14 (6) where the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture cannot vote on any matters relating to enclosures for agricultural purposes. The elected verderers have an absolute majority—

Mi. Brendan Bracken: But his loyal colleague from the Ministry of Town and Country Planning presumably can cast a vote in favour of the proposition of the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. Williams: No, that is not so. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have read the Bill.

Mr. Bracken: Yes, I have.

Mr. Williams: The Ministry of Town and Country Planning does not get a representative at all.

Mr. Bracken: It gets one under amenity value.

Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I shall explain why in a moment. The point I have been making is that under these two subsections the elective verderers are given an absolute right to determine whether


or not there shall be any enclosures for afforestation or agriculture—which simply means for improving grazing at the expense of the State. That was a very large concession on top of the concession made in changing the constitution from the recommendations of the Baker Committee.
Moreover, this matter was dealt with exhaustively in another place and by a Select Committee. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest does not shake his head to suggest that the Select Committee did not deal with this matter exhaustively. If he does, I recommend him to read page 25 of the first day's hearing. There he will find that the constitution of the Court of Verderers was dealt with exhaustively and finally turned down.

Mr. Bracken: It says, "at great length."

Mr. Williams: Exhaustively or at great length—I will accept anything for the sake of peace and quietness. If it was at great length it was exhaustive. The point is that, after having dealt with it with counsel present and witnesses available, they turned down the proposition which has been proposed again this afternoon. We have gone a very long way to meet the local interests. Apparently, there is only one person in the whole of Great Britain who is dissatisfied—the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest.

Mr. Bracken: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. There is another.

Mr. Williams: If another one has emerged this afternoon, he is a late comer. He has only just discovered that the New Forest adjoins Bournemouth. It is a rather belated recognition.
The Baker Committee said in their Report that it was well nigh impossible to reconcile all the so-called differences of opinion in the New Forest and, indeed, were anybody to try to succeed, they feared that they would cause immediate trouble because the local interests within the New Forest regard differences of opinion and grievances as the major amenities within the New Forest. Apparently the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest justifies the statement made by the committee. It may be that there is something in history, but my

understanding of the hon. and gallant Member is that his history of this matter, starting with William the Conqueror, is all wrong. It seems to me to be fantastic for William the Conqueror to set up a Court of Verderers to tie his own hands.
4.15 p.m.
The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury asked two plain questions. He asked what the nominees of the Ministry of Agriculture and the Forestry Commission were there for and what they were to do, and suggested that if they had advice to give they could give it without becoming verderers. The verderers themselves recognise—they embody it in their petition—the interests of the Ministry of Agriculture who are the virtual owners of a very large area of the New Forest. They realise that they have a national interest to care for. The Forestry Commission have planted or they care for a large area of woodlands and they have a great interest in all parts of the Forest, so much so that annually they have been spending £2,000 or £3,000, not exclusively on forestry work, but on drainage, the clearing of undergrowth and so on, so that the commoners can have a better time than they would have had if this expense had fallen upon their shoulders. The Forestry Commission and the technicians obviously know the needs of the New Forest area.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Do they?

Mr. Williams: I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would concede that. It is because the verderers and certain other interests were unable or unwilling to move in certain directions that there was any necessity for setting up a committee for the purpose of smoothing out many of the difficulties, trying to ascertain what the legal position in regard to the New Forest really was, and taking steps to clarify it.
The Ministry of Agriculture representative would be there exclusively for the benefit of the commoners, for the purpose of advising and guiding them if any portion of the area should be taken over temporarily for agriculture, to be returned to the commoners after reseeding so that the number of livestock that the land would carry would increase enormously. They have undertaken experiments which I referred to in my Second Reading speech and which I


would not say were unique, though some of them were extremely successful. With the advice now available to us we are satisfied that large areas, done intermittently, a small space here and there, can be improved to the benefit of the commoners, and ultimately I hope, perhaps in terms of milk or beef, they will be advantageous to the State.
I have looked at this proposal with as much sympathy as I can, but I think that the concessions we have already made are such that I cannot hope to go further. As against the six appointed members recommended by the committee, we provide for only four. As against the four elective verderers recommended by the committee we provide for five. For the more important purposes—enclosures for afforestation or agriculture—we leave the verderers with an absolute majority. I think that that is a well balanced and workable court, and I am unwilling at this late stage to change the constitution. I hope that the Committee will not hesitate to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Bracken: There is no more attractive speaker in this Committee than the Minister of Agriculture. He could charm a bird off a tree, but not off one of the trees of the New Forest. His history was slightly muddled. I think he slandered William the Conqueror when he said that he would not have permitted any liberty in the Forest. On the contrary, he admitted far more liberty than our tyrannical Socialist Government. Furthermore, in order that the forest men might make quite sure that their masters in Whitehall were kept in order, King William's son was slaughtered in the Forest. The foresters lament that but they hope to have another opportunity later of dealing with tyrants.
Having listened to the Minister's speech, I am reminded of a remark made by Bishop Creighton that nobody does more harm than he who goes about trying to do good. That is what the Minister has been pushed into doing. Why pack this ancient court with nominees of the Ministry of Agriculture or the Forestry Commission? We are told that the other verderer who represents planning is going to protect the amenities of the forest, but that is really completely absurd. We who live in that part of the world have seen the frustration of the planners in trying to protect another glorious part of the

South—the Isle of Purbeck, which has been desecrated. The local planners say that the verderer appointed by the Minister certainly does not represent any successful endeavour to prevent the destruction of amenities.

Mr. Shackleton: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell me where in the Bill there is a reference to a planner appointed by the Minister in respect of town and country planning?

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Gentleman has a pedantic mind, which is very successful in keeping him from his ideal place. The only point was that the planning authorities have a right to appoint a verderer.

Mr. Shackleton: No, the Minister.

Mr. Bracken: It does not matter; the whole point is the planning authority. This interruption is both irrelevant and very wrong.
The Minister paid a tribute to the Forestry Commission today and said that we ought to be grateful for all that they have done. Well, what have they done? They have planted these abominable conifers, which may be all right on the misty isles of Scotland or on some of the rugged mountains in that part of Britain, but which are an abomination in the New Forest. I feel very strongly, and I think I may get the hon. Member for Preston to agree with me here, that the very people who should not be let loose in the New Forest are these pine-planters. It is disgraceful that the finest forest left to us in Britain should now be at the mercy of people who plant these filthy conifers. [Interruption.] If the Minister of Education has an interruption to make, perhaps he would not mind getting up and making his interruption in clearer tones? I see; the right hon. Gentleman is not interested in the matter of the amenities of the countryside.
Nothing could be worse from the point of view of the last great remaining forest in the South of England than that we should have these conifers. The Forestry Commission have only one idea in life, and that is to plant these abominable trees wherever they can find a space that will receive them. They have already destroyed much of the possibility of developing food production in Britain by planting their trees, and we certainly do not want them in the New Forest.
If the Minister would only agree—I suppose he finds this very difficult at this late hour—to get rid of the verderer who represents the Forestry Commission, we might be in a position to withdraw our Amendment. Public Enemy No. 1 to the New Forest, of course, is this Forestry Commission. I know the Minister is a broad-minded man, though he has probably never studied the interests of the New Forest. If he will, at this rather late hour, accept from me a manuscript Amendment which has the object of keeping the Forestry Commission away from the New Forest, I think my hon. and gallant Friend would probably be able to withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. Shackleton: I had intended to deal mainly with the points made by the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), but the intervention of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) has introduced precisely that type of confusion which invariably arises whenever the right hon. Gentleman honours this House with his presence. He started off by making one misstatement when he accused me of being pedantic when I attempted to correct him on a point of fact. The right hon. Gentleman said that the verderer appointed by a local planning authority would be a nominee of the Minister, and he said that the local planning authority was appointed by the Minister. Where the right hon. Gentleman has been during these last few years I do not know, but he surely must know that that is totally incorrect.
Let us examine precisely what the composition of the Court of Verderers is going to be. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. and gallant Gentleman who represents the New Forest when he questions whether or not the forestry verderer can add to the usefulness of the discussions of the Court of Verderers. I believe that the original proposals for the appointment of a representative of the Minister of Agriculture and of the Forestry Commission did go a long way to meeting local interests when they were trying to thresh out the nature of this Bill before the Baker Committee. At any rate, the point arose and it has gradually become incorporated in the Bill.
Whether or not there is any serious danger of these so-called nominees of the

Minister interfering with the discussions of the verderers, one thing is quite apparent, and that is that the more the interested parties can get round a table to talk over their difficulties, the better chance there is of an agreement. I believe that the Minister has made an extraordinary effort to meet the feelings of the commoners and others. It is quite clear that the majority power rests with the local interests. This talk of "packing" is pure malicious nonsense, designed to produce the type of reaction which will drive the right hon. Member for Bournemouth into becoming a "Maquis" in the New Forest, and the right hon. Gentleman will have something to learn about the "Maquis" in the near future.
We can tell the Minister that we know that this Bill is necessary, and that, in fact, the people of the New Forest and those who study the interests of the New Forest realise the need for it. The Minister has done his part by making a large number of concessions, though there are some on which I wish he had gone further. To suggest that this court is liable to oppress local interests is sheer nonsense and totally untrue. How can any council or committee be regarded as packed "when, in fact, only two out of 10 members are appointed by the Government? Those are the actual figures, and I commend that fact to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth.
Therefore, I suggest that the Committee would be wrong at this stage to accept the Amendment, and that we should accept gratefully the concessions which have been made. Above all, we should moderate our language in considering this Bill, because it is going to work, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite is seeking to achieve precisely the effect which I am sure all people, both in the New Forest and outside it, are anxious to avoid, namely, the creation of ill-feeling. I therefore suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he should make any further interventions, he should think before he speaks.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I only speak because it happens that my constituency, the Forest of Dean, has a similar kind of problem to deal with as that, which is the subject of this Bill. There are ancient rights belonging to commoners which go back for hundreds of years, and which, under the common


law of the land, have to be recognised. At the same time, however, there is the growing need of the nation for timber. In the Forest of Dean we have a verderers' court similar to that in the New Forest. It settles differences, but does not now play the part which it formerly played.

4.30 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the hon. Gentleman say how often this verderers' court meets?

Mr. Philips Price: It meets once a year. It functions all right, but I do not think it has the same function as the court in the New Forest. I was a Forestry Commissioner for three years, and I know that it is very difficult in the New Forest, because there is a very large area there belonging to the commoners, and one very much wonders whether it is really playing its full part, in the production of either food or timber. It seems to me that the time has come when a rearrangement is necessary, which, while safeguarding the rights of the commoners, will at the same time make better agriculture possible. It seems to me that that will be the general effect of Clause 1, and, therefore, I do not think that the Amendment is necessary.
I would point out to the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) that the soil in the New Forest is eminently suitable for growing conifers. It is the best soil for that purpose which I know of anywhere. I would go so far as to agree with the right hon. Gentleman that one should not destroy certain parts of the ancient forest; one should keep a portion of it, at any rate. But to say that conifers are filthy, and all that, is really ridiculous. There is really fine conifer soil in the forest, and I am sure that the Forestry Commissioners understand perfectly well how to increase the timber resources of the country, and, at the same time, to retain the amenities. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's speech has been helpful in this matter.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: We have had to complain many times during the last few months about the Forestry Commission, and after the speech to which we have just listened I find it hard to imagine that anything more is necessary to show how right we were. I do not want to

follow the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Philips Price) on all that he has said, because we shall have the opportunity of doing that on later Amendments. But when he says that the soil of the New Forest is eminently suitable for conifers, he should remember that, in fact, all that the Forestry Commission has done is to use for the planting of conifers clay soils which are ideal for growing oak.

Mr. Philips Price: The soil of the New Forest is not entirely clay; there are large areas of what is called "Bournemouth sand."

Mr. Shackleton: On a point of Order. Is it in Order, Mr. Bowles, to discuss conifers when we are dealing with the Court of Verderers, because we shall be discussing the question of enclosures later on?

The Deputy-Chairman: It is in Order for hon. Members to discuss that matter on this Amendment.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: All I want to say is that there is evidence—and I can give it to the hon. Gentleman if he desires—to show that the whole of the area used by the Forestry Commission could be put to much better use for purposes of timber growing than is at present the case.

Mr. Alpass: Does not the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that there are sufficient experts on the Forestry Commission to advise how to deal with the soil?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It is not quite so simple as that. As far as I can make out, the order goes forth for a certain sort of timber to be grown, instead of the people concerned being asked about the type of soil and what it can grow.

Mr. Shackleton: Would not the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that this is, in fact, an argument in favour of having a Forestry Commission representative on the Court of Verderers?

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: The hon. Member lives in the New Forest, and I credited him with having an elementary knowledge of what happens. The Court of Verderers has no jurisdiction whatever over the enclosed land held by the Forestry Commission. Such land is


entirely under the control of the Forestry Commission, and they can do what they like with it.
I was rather sorry that the Minister went out of his way to attack me, because I do not think that I could be accused of being pugnacious. He said that I was now the only person who remained dissatisfied. I do not think that he even believes that to be true. If he does, then I suggest that he should look into it a bit further. The right hon. Gentleman refused to answer the three simple questions which I put to him. The first was, are these nominees to be appointed to the court because of some job which the verderers have not done in the past? The second was, is there any new job which they are to be asked to perform which the verderers have not done in the past. The third question was, if neither of those two things are true, then what on earth are they for?
The Minister went into a long-winded and wordy statement to the effect that the Forestry Commission could advise the verderers of this, that, and the other. I do not know whether the Minister knows it, but the late Deputy-Surveyor, Mr. Young, attended the court on every single occasion, both at open session and in committee. As one of the verderers, may I say that his advice was of the highest value and was always taken into consideration. There is nothing that a deputy-surveyor—and I presume that his successor is going to do the same thing—can do which cannot be done without having this representative on the court. I ask the Minister to tell us in detail what this member of the Forestry Commission is going to do on the court.
In another place—again if I may quote the evidence given—the idea was that we should have a member of the Forestry Commission so that he could advise which areas might profitably be enclosed for timber production. The Minister carried that a little further by saying the same thing about the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture with regard to the enclosure of agricultural land. Both the representative of the Forestry Commission and the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture could do exactly the same thing by making presentment in open court and by giving their evidence. There is no single function under those heads

which demands that they should be members of the court.
What is the member appointed by the authority approved by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning going to do? We have not heard a word about that yet, and I think that we ought to know something. The Minister went on to say, "Look at the concessions that we have made; we have given you one extra elective verderer and we have cut down the nominated verderers." The Minister has made no concession at all. All he has done is to say that all nominees are to come from Whitehall and that nominees so far as the local authorities are concerned can be cut out. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not use that argument again.
The right hon. Gentleman said that I was wrong about the antiquity of verderers and their functions. I always regret that people should sneer at antiquity and at what has done yeoman service during the centuries. I ask the Minister, if he has time, to look at an Act relating to forest laws; it is the Act of Edward I, Chapter 33—"Ordinatio de Forestia." Even at that time the verderers were accepted as being the instrument which I have described. Even at that date they were of considerable standing and antiquity. I ask the Minister not to be content to view the problems in the New Forest from Whitehall, but to go there and try to learn what has been achieved and what can be done in the Forest if only an opportunity is given.
The right hon. Gentleman says that he has made concessions. I ask him to think back to the time when this Bill was first introduced in another place, and think of the changes which have taken place since then. Not one change followed as a graceful act of the Ministry. The whole of the changes and improvements were achieved because people in the New Forest fought the right hon. Gentleman's Bill at great expense to themselves. I suggest that before he makes these allegations so glibly about Members of Parliament being the only people who are dissatisfied, he should study the case and come here with more facts than he possesses at the moment.

Mr. T. Williams: It is only from a sense of courtesy that I rise to say a few more words. If I were to appoint


an official political or Parliamentary sneerer I should not go beyond the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre). I think he is par excellence a sneerer at those who have done most to try to reconcile all the local authorities. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was not sufficiently courteous to tell the Committee that perhaps those local interests in the New Forest had a privilege extended to them that rarely is given to any section of the community in this country. A draft Bill was produced, and was taken along to the representatives of local interests who were allowed to discuss it ad lib with my representatives.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: rose—

Mr. Williams: I am talking, and I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to let me continue my story. The representatives of local interests were consulted at almost every stage. If the local interests, which were very often conflicting, did not always agree with the hon. and gallant Member's forest philosophy and did not get whatever they required, that is regarded as a failure on our part to appreciate the requirements of the New Forest.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: May I interrupt? I should only like to make it clear that I did not refer to those consultations, as I had always understood that they were of a privileged nature and should not be referred to publicly.

Mr. Williams: I am prepared to accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's statement, but so long as he now admits that that was the case, I am quite happy. Long before the Bill was presented in another place the local interests as well as the national interests had an opportunity to examine the rights and wrongs of the proposed step to bring the New Forest up to modern conditions.

Mr. Bracken: There is nothing unusual in that.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Williams: Anyway, they had privileges which are not extended to many people. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the "packing" of this Court of Verderers. When there are two representatives of two Government Departments, and eight representatives of non-Government Departments, it seems to me

that the packing is in the other direction. When the right hon. Gentleman condemns out of hand these "pine planters" and "conifer fans," he must have forgotten the absolute importance of softwood in this country. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that before the commencement of the last war we were importing upwards of 90 per cent. of all our softwood? At this very moment our horticulturists are up against impossible competition because they have not sufficient softwood for packing and presenting their produce, compared with the continentals who have plenty of softwood.

Mr. Bracken: May I interrupt to say that the right hon. Gentleman's argument is far beneath the character of his office? He might just as well say that we ought to tear up the plants in Kew and grow cabbages and carrots.

Mr. Williams: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about conifer fans and pine planters, he might reflect on the necessity for softwood in this country. I am credibly informed by those who are supposed to be experts that there is a good deal of land in the New Forest which is practically useless either for grazing or farm purposes, and that was brought out fully in the Report of the Baker Committee. I am satisfied that if the Forestry Commission were to ask for further enclosures, only the poorest of poor land would be planted with either one tree or another. It seems to me that on all counts the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. and gallant Friend have not made out a case for changing this well-balanced constitution of the Court of Verderers. In view of all the concessions that we have already made, I am unwilling to concede this point.

Mr. Sargood: A great deal has been said in this Debate about amenities. Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it would improve the amenities of the New Forest if we were to clear the "Bracken" from the neighbourhood of this forest?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The argument with which I sought to justify this Amendment was that these gentlemen whom it is proposed to appoint from the various Departments and from the town planning authorities could easily advise efficiently and well without being members of the Court of Verderers. Would


the right hon. Gentleman tell me what additional advantage would be gained if they were given the status of verderers?

Mr. Williams: I will readily answer that question. I have always said that the Forestry Commission has been spending from £2,500 to £3,000 per annum within the Forest more or less for the benefit of commoners. There is no denying that the average amount spent has been between those figures. In this Bill we take power for the Forestry Commission to spend a further £1,500 per annum. It seems to me, therefore, that the Forestry Commission, who are already engaged in extensive operations and who will be permitted, with the assent of the elective verderers, to plant over 10 or more years perhaps 5,000 more acres, have a sufficient interest within the Forest to allow them to be represented by at least one of the 10 verderers.
I repeat that during the war experiments were carried out on re-seeding to improve the pasture for animal carrying. They were largely successful. On the Second Reading I quoted from "Country Life" an article by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), who is in no doubt about it. Surely the Ministry of Agriculture are theoretically the owners of a very large area of the New Forest. They have, therefore, an interest in it. They have an interest as to how it may be used. If they carried out experiments at all it would be at the expense of the Government of the day, whatever Government it might be, and on all counts I think they are entitled to at least one expert adviser out of the 10 verderers to see that the best use for agriculture is made of any parts that may be improved.

Mr. Charles Williams: I have been privileged to hear only the last part of the Debate and I quite honestly say to the right hon. Gentleman that his last remarks have caused me very seriously to wonder what is the main object of the Government. I have followed the right hon. Gentleman and the Government on many of these occasions, and every time I have noticed that their object is gradually to pack any local body. First of all, they put on the body three or four officials nominated, driven and directed by the Government, who gradually worm into the local authorities, who are

really representative people. They are not just like Government Departments, like the Forestry Commission or the Ministry of Agriculture, with vast blocks of land for which the unfortunate taxpayers have to pay and which are generally manipulated so badly. They then claim the power to appoint three or four officials representing different departments. That surely must be a complete and utter waste of the time of Government officials.
It would be quite sufficient for one representative of the Government as a whole to represent all these three departments. There is no earthly reason why one representative should not do the whole thing. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman telling me that they are to send down an expert on town planning, another expert on agriculture and another on forestry. They may be technical experts, but it will be completely useless unless they have common sense. One individual with common sense would be far more valuable than all these experts.
For that reason I want, as an ordinary taxpayer, to see these numbers cut down. Most of these things are only excuses for Government officials to have jobs in the countryside. I see it all over the country. It is one of the worst forms of extravagance at the present time. I agree that there must be a Government representative on this court, but I think one would be enough. If any specialised evidence were needed or if the Government wished to give evidence, all that would be necessary would be one of those open courts which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) has explained so ably. In the future, as in the past, the Government official could come down and explain the position. That would not be on every occasion. To seek an opportunity of going all the way down to the New Forest on every occasion and having a day at each end would be a pure waste of time and Departmental money.
If the Government have any belief in the policy that they should cut down needless administrative expenses, then they have, in the Amendment now before the Committee, a wonderful chance to cut expenses and to reduce the work of three or four Government officials. I am only too willing to help the Government along the path of virtue. It takes a good deal to


make even the Chancellor of the Exchequer look at the path of virtue, but if there is any sincerity in the Government and in their desire to reduce needless expenditure, surely they will never have a better chance of doing so than that which is offered here.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out "four," and to insert "two." There is no need for me to add anything further.

Question put, "That 'four' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 241; Noes, 125.

Division No. 266.]
AYES
[5.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Albu, A H.
Gallacher, W.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Alpass, J. H.
Gibson, C. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Anderson, A. (Mother well)
Gilzean, A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Attewell, H. C.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Goodrich, H. E.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Awbery, S. S.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Ayles, W. H.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mellish, R. J.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.


Balfour, A.
Grey, C. F.
Mikardo, Ian


Barton, C.
Grierson, E.
Mitchison, G. R.


Battley, J. R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Monslow, W.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Berry, H.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Binns, J.
Gunter, R. J.
Mort, D. L.


Blyton, W. R.
Guy, W. H.
Moyle, A.


Boardman, H.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Murray, J. D.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hale, Leslie
Nally, W.


Bowden, H. W.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Naylor, T. E.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Bramall, E. A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hardy, E. A.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Harrison, J.
Oldfield, W. H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville.
Oliver, G. H.


Brown, George (Belper)
Haworth, J.
Orbach, M.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Paget, R. T.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pannell, T. C.


Burke, W. A.
Holman, P.
Pargiter, G. A.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.


Carmichael, James
Horabin, T. L.
Parkin, B. T.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Houghton, Douglas
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Chatsr, D.
Hoy, J.
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hubbard, T.
Peart, T. F.


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Coob, F. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Cocks, F. S.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Collins, V. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Cook, T. F.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Price, M. Philips


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Proctor, W. T.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pryde, D. J.


Cove, W. G.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Ranger, J.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Rankin, J.


Cullen, Mrs.
Jenkins, R. H.
Reeves, J.


Daines, P.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Keenan, W.
Richards, R.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, C.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kinley, J.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Royle, C.


Deer, G.
Lavers, S.
Sargood, R.


Delargy, H. J.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Scollan, T.


Diamond, J.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Dobbie, W.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Dodds, N. N.
Leonard, W.
Sharp, Granville


Donovan, T.
Leslie, J. R.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Simmons, C. J.


Edelman, M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G.
Skinnard, F. W.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Longden, F.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lyne, A. W.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McAdam, W.
Snow, J. W.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McAllister, G.
Sparks, J. A.


Ewart, R.
McEntee, V. La T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Fairhurst, F.
McGhee, H. G.
Swingler, S.


Farthing, W. J.
McGovern, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Fernyhough, E.
Mack, J. D.
Symonds, A. L.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Forman, J. C.
McKinlay, A. S.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)




Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
West, D. G.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Thurtle, Ernest
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)
Willis, E.


Timmons, J.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Tolley, L.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Wigg, George
Woods, G. S.


Vernon, Maj. W. F.
Wilkins, W. A.
Yates, V. F.


Viant, S. P.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)



Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Warbey, W. N.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Mr. Pearson and


Watson, W. M.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Mr. Richard Adams.


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)





NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Osborne, C.


Baxter, A. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hollis, M. C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hope, Lord J.
Pickthorn, K.


Birch, Nigel
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Boles, Ll.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Price-White, D.


Bowen, R.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Bower, N.
Keeling, E. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Renton, D.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. J. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bromley-Davenport, Ll.-Col. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Byers, Frank
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ropner, Col. L.


Challen, C.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Ranfrew, E.)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Low, A. R. W.
Scott, Lord W.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. or Wight)
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Davidson, Viscountess
McFarlane, C. S.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Digby, S. Wingfield
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Drayson, G. B.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Turton, R. H.


Duthie, W. S.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marples, A. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Maude, J. C.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Mellor, Sir J.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Gammans, L. D.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
York, C.


Gomme-Duncan, Col A.
Nicholson, G.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.



Harden, J. R. E.
Nutting, Anthony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Odey, G. W.
Major Conant and Mr. Studholme.


Head, Brig. A. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(ENCLOSURES FOR GROWTH OF TIMBER.)

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, at the end to insert:
(3) The Forestry Commissioners shall make to the verderers in respect of land for the time being enclosed by virtue of this section payments of such amounts as may be agreed between the verderers and the Commissioners.
These words, which in the Bill as printed are enclosed in brackets, were left

out by the Lords to avoid questions of Privilege. There is a series of such Privileged Amendments that we have to make.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: This Clause seeks to give the Forestry Commission power, subject to the permission of the verderers, to enclose a further 5,000 acres, and I think that before we part with this Clause we ought to hear from the Minister something about how he arrived at that figure; whether he is satisfied that he


can find those acres in the Forest; and whether, above all, he is satisfied that he can find them in the Forest in such a way as not further to deprive the commoners of their rights of pasture and the public of their rights of amenity.
When this was discussed in another place before the Select Committee, the only statements we got from the Government were two in number. The first was that, according to the Baker Report, this figure of 5,000 acres had been arrived at without any consideration of amenities at all. Therefore, I think it fair to say that probably this figure does not take amenities into account at all. The second statement we got from Lord Robinson, who spoke on behalf of the Government, and who said that no survey had been made in any respect in the New Forest to show either that there were 5,000 acres that were suitable or, secondly, where that acreage should be. All that he, on behalf of the Government, was able to state was that 5,000 acres was one-eighth of the total unenclosed Forest, and that therefore it must be possible, on that sort of percentage, to find 5,000 acres.
Now, I am the last to decry the great contribution that timber growing in the New Forest has made to the country's economy. I think I am right in saying that something like a half of the total soft woods that were employed during the war came from the New Forest. However, I do say that, whatever may be the immediate value to the Forestry Commission of an additional acreage in the New Forest, from a national point of view that can be justified only if the Commissioners can show that it will not upset the traditional agricultural occupations of that district. Our first duty in this House is to make certain that the agricultural balance, particularly as regards the small commoners, will not be upset. So far, we have heard nothing about that, and I hope the Minister will say something on that subject.
I do not think the Minister will deny that under previous Acts, with which we have very little to do this afternoon, the Forestry Commission has taken unto itself all the best parts of the Forest. That is what the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) talked about, and I am sorry that he is no longer here. Having taken all the low-lying

land and the land adjacent to water, they have left, as a general principle, merely the gravel highlands, and they are now saying in effect, "We may as well have the remainder as it is eminently suitable to conifers."
The real object in promoting this Bill, which has been asked for by the New Forest, was to ensure that the New Forest should be a balanced agricultural community in the future. That can never be done if the commoners are encouraged by the provisions of the Bill not only to continue depasturing their cattle but to increase the number. If there is one way of ensuring that that will not be so, it is by trying to take another 5,000 acres out of the Forest. I know that the Minister will say, "Here we have a large unit and a convenient unit, and it is much cheaper and more economical." My answer is that the New Forest is not something essential to the Forestry Commission. They were asked in another place what they had done about those countless thousands of acres, particularly in Surrey, growing nothing but scrub and eminently suitable for replantation, and which they could get very cheaply. Lord Robinson's answer was that that had been considered, but he was not going to tell the Committee, and I do not suppose that this afternoon we shall hear anything about their plans for using that agricultural land.
I ask the Minister to withdraw this Clause, which cannot be operated except by doing harm to the commoners. I suggest that it is bad not only locally for the New Forest because of the effect which it will have on the depasturing of cattle, but also from the amenity point of view, as the inclusion of a further 5,000 acres must mean greater destruction of wild life and further restriction of access to the public.

Mr. Shackleton: I am astonished at the modesty of the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), who is one of the verderers, that he should consider that they are unfit to discharge the duty which the House in this Clause seeks to impose upon them. It is absolutely misleading for him to suggest that this Bill, in effect, provides for the enclosure of 5,000 acres for the growing of trees. It does nothing of the sort. It provides for the enclosure, with the permission of the


verderers, of an undefined number of acres not exceeding 5,000. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), who lives in a town which is full of conifers—there are probably more conifers in Bournemouth than in any other town in England—would, of course, object on principle to the growing of any conifers in the New Forest.
5.15 p.m.
This Clause does allow, with the permission of the verderers—and it puts a heavy responsibility on the verderers from which the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch should not shrink—more trees to be grown in the New Forest. Where it is possible to find 5,000 acres is a matter for the future and for the verderers to decide in consultation with the Forestry Commission. I am sure that they are patriotic enough to realise that if it is possible to find a place to grow these trees without spoiling the amenities or seriously interfering with the grazing, that should be done.
Whether they are conifers or hardwoods is, I agree, a matter of some importance. Personally, I rather like conifers in the right context. One can find them in the wrong context in the New Forest, and also find them sometimes under conditions which are objectionable from the amenity point of view. All this could be straightened out by the Court of Verderers. The hon. and gallant Member put words into the mouth of the Minister of Agriculture on this particular subject of the growing of conifers which, I am quite sure, the right hon. Gentleman did not utter.
The purpose of the Clause is to provide for the growing of more trees in the forest if that is possible. I cannot see what is the objection. If this Clause had remained in the Bill without the other provisions since inserted in another place, there would have been very serious objection. If, in fact, it was to provide an important source of revenue, and it was only through the growing of trees that the verderers could get the necessary revenue, I would say that the argument originally put forward, that they had to negotiate under duress, would have been sound. I think that in its original form the Bill was objectionable. That has now been altered, and I ask the Committee to look at this matter in its reality, not as a matter of

putting conifers all over the forest, but as a measure designed for the growing of more trees for the benefit of this country, if possible. We have agreed that it should be left to the verderers, without the Minister of Agriculture and the Forestry Commission verderers, to decide whether that should be so.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: It is left only to the Forestry Commission verderers.

Mr. Shackleton: Even so, there is a clear non-official majority also supported by the people representing the amenity interests and the local planning authority. Therefore, I cannot really see what is the objection to this Clause in its present form.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shackleton) has not approached this matter with very much understanding of the problems of the Forest. Where are these 5,000 acres to be found at the present time if we are to protect the amenities of the forest and give further opportunity to the agriculturists in the Forest? The hon. Gentleman's approach strikes me as being best described by the lines:
The law doth punish man or woman
That steals the goose from off the common,
But lets the greater felon loose,
That steals the common from the goose.
That is what is happening now. To bring the Forestry Commissioners into the New Forest and give them rights to enclose another 5,000 acres without specifying where they are to be is, to my mind, a monstrous affront to the Forest.

Mr. Shackleton: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the people themselves are better capable of judging whether their land should be enclosed for the growing of trees than are the verderers? That is precisely the effect of this Clause.

Mr. Bracken: It does not do any such thing. It will appear in an Act of Parliament that the Forestry Commissioners, with their thoroughly bad reputation for destroying the amenities of this country, will enclose another 5,000 acres of the Forest. I understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is the forestry expert of this Government; certainly, he is the best paper producer we have ever


known. I ask the Committee to appreciate that more and more people are coming to the Forest. The Forest is a great lung for many cities, and we cannot afford to allow another 5,000 acres of it to be enclosed by the Forestry Commission. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Shackleton), who sits for an industrial constituency, would have been the first to protest against any further enclosure of land in Britain. There was a time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and his party were ferociously opposed to all forms of enclosure. I think it is an abominable proposition that of the little land that still remains to the New Forest, another 5,000 acres should be enclosed. I thought the right hon. Gentleman would support us today—

Mr. Kirkwood: Why?

Mr. Bracken: In his hey-day the right hon. Gentleman was against all forms of privilege, whether on the part of Government Departments or capitalists. This is the worst form of privilege, and it is being conferred on the Forestry Commissioners—a body of acknowledged incompetents which has done more to destroy our landscape than anything else in history, including erosion of the soil and the malice of Hitler. I hope the Minister will not agree to this idea of enclosing more land in the Forest, which is a great public possession. I ask him not to let the Forestry Commissioners loose on more enclosed land. According to the Commissioners' protagonists, it is not at all certain today that the Commission intend to grow many trees. It is said that they want the land back. They may decide to grow some of their favourite conifers, or use the land for pasturage for goats.

Mr. Shackleton: The right hon. Gentleman is completely misrepresenting what I or anyone else has said on this subject. In addition to reading the Bill, which I recommended earlier, he should also read the Second Reading Debate.

Mr. Bracken: As Socrates once said, "You are right, but you are unintelligible." That is the trouble with the hon. Gentleman. He comes here with impeccable sentiments, but he cannot make us understand them.
I know that the Minister of Agriculture is capable of a death-bed ministerial repentance. His amiability is one of the most attractive of his characteristics. I feel sure that before he assents to the strange idea that we should hand over 5,000 acres to the Forestry Commissioners, without any knowledge of what they will do, he should ask Lord Robinson to explain what they intend to do with the 5,000 acres. Perhaps he would also confer the further advantage upon us of asking them to consider planting their conifers on the marginal lands of Scotland, or in Surrey. The New Forest is a precious public possession, and it is wrong to enclose more of it. I hope the Minister will overrule his officials and be remembered in history as the man who did as much for the New Forest as its original planter, William the Conquerer.

Mr. Gallacher: The right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) has talked about the evil persons who constitute the Forestry Commission I do not know what sort of people they are in England, but I do know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will testify that the Forestry Commission in Scotland are today doing a good job in re-beautifying Scotland.

Mr. Bracken: indicated dissent.

Mr. Gallacher: Yes, if the right hon. Gentleman will come to the West of Scotland he will see what a splendid job they are doing there.

The Deputy-Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member that this Bill deals only with the New Forest in England, and has nothing to do with the administration of the Forestry Commissioners in Scotland.

Mr. Gallacher: I was merely giving an illustration of the difference between people in England and Scotland.
When at school I remember a little lad writing a composition in which he said that a kick from an ostrich would knock a man sensible. I think the right hon. Member for Bournemouth could do with a kick from an ostrich. But I would tell him that as soon as my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs and I saw the word "enclosures" we were reminded of the evil conduct of the Tories in the past. They enclosed land for the advantage of a few parasites


at the expense of the mass of the people. This Clause does something entirely different. Here it is a question of using powers of enclosure to ensure that, where-ever necessary, our land can be used in the interests of the people as a whole and not just a few parasites. If it should be necessary even to remove a croft or two and give the occupants something more desirable in the way of housing and fertile land, that would be an advantage to the community as a whole, because the land would be put to the best possible productive use. The right hon. Gentleman opposite tries to tell us about the evil ghosts of the past and to "kid" my right hon. Friend and myself. We do not like enclosures on principle—

Mr. Kirkwood: But we are more against the Tories.

Mr. Gallacher: In all my experience as an agitator I have never known anyone whose instincts were always so proletarian and so correct as those of my right hon. Friend. He has no need to reason things out and labour over matters like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth; instinctively he knows when a thing is against the old gang and to the advantage of the people as a whole. That is why he and I will support this Clause.

Mr. T. Williams: It is clear that the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) does not like the Forestry Commission or any of their works.

Mr. Bracken: Not the Commissioners personally, but the whole idea of the Commission.

Mr. Williams: I agree with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that the Forestry Commissioners, since 1920, have done a grand job. If the right hon. Gentleman went to Norfolk, for instance, he would see the work that is being done there on tens of thousands of acres, with trees growing where nothing would grow before. If he would do that, I am sure that his prejudice against anything detrimental happening in the New Forest would be superseded by an acknowledgment of the glory of the transformation which the Commissioners have brought about. Indeed, this Conservative-nationalised industry is one of our most successful undertakings so far. I do not, therefore, sympathise with the

right hon. Gentleman's valuation of those civil servants who are associated with the Commission.
The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) said that apparently the figure of 5,000 had been decided upon without any regard to amenities. I should have thought he would have known that there was not an atom of truth in that suggestion. He must have read the Baker Report, and I should have thought that he would have assimilated it very thoroughly. On page 34 it says:
One expert witness gave it as his opinion that of the Open Forest 20,000 acres at least would be better under timber. The representative of the Ministry of Agriculture said that 10,000 acres in all were useless for grazing but agreed that much of it was scattered in small pockets and finally gave the reduced figure of 5,000 acres as suitable for afforestation.
The committee therefore say:
In the absence of plans it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion, but we are ready to assume that 5,000 acres of the total stated to be unfit for grazing might be planted without damage to amenities, or to the Commoners' interests.
Therefore, 5,000 acres was a maximum figure, which emerged after cross-examining expert witnesses in both afforestation and agriculture.

5.30 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Perhaps the Minister would look at paragraph (3) on page 34, where he will see the sentence:
Both witnesses—
that is, the two witnesses from whom he has been quoting—
admitted that they excluded all consideration of amenity from their calculations.

Mr. Williams: I will read all the paragraph if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wishes; I do not want to shirk anything:
Both witnesses admitted that they excluded all consideration of amenity from their calculations, and were speaking from a purely professional point of view.
What the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to forget is that the first witness said 20,000 acres and the second witness said 10,000 acres, but in both cases the figure was reduced to 5,000. It was the committee themselves who said that, according to their best judgment, 5,000 acres could be planted


without damage to the amenities or to the Commoners' interests.
Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot deny that when the committee made their recommendation they had amenities in mind, otherwise that sentence would not have appeared in their Report.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: This is a very important point. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at that paragraph again he will see that while it is true that the representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture said 10,000 acres to start with and then reduced it, because of these small pockets, to 5,000 acres, as I read the paragraph the Ministry still maintained that, in giving that judgment, it had no regard whatsoever to amenity. I do not think that paragraph can be considered otherwise.

Mr. Williams: I could not accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's interpretation. I have on my side the guidance of the committee, whose chairman was a very capable lawyer, able to sift evidence; and also I have the opinions of the men who were giving that evidence. Whatever the hon. and gallant Gentleman may say, we shall disagree if we go on all night. I am standing pat on the committee's report. The committee said, after questioning these various witnesses, that 5,000 acres probably could be planted
without damage to the amenities or to the commoners' interests.
Thus the figure of 5,000 acres emerges. It must be clear to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that that would in no way upset the commoners' rights.
It is common ground that the forest has been undergrazed for a very considerable period of time. Indeed, during the war something like 8,000 acres were taken over by the various Services. Despite those, as it were, absent 8,000 acres, the number of animals grazing rose from 1,200 in 1939 to 4,000 in 1945; but the verderers themselves have stated in evidence that the actual number the Forest could graze is something like 8,000 animals. Now, if only 1,200 animals were grazing in the New Forest when It was capable of grazing 8,000 it is clear that the lack of animals was allowing the potential grazing land of the New Forest to deteriorate all the time. I think that is a reasonable assumption for me to make.

Mr. Bracken: The Minister is surely destroying his own argument. If the number of animals is too small, is it wise to enclose another 5,000 acres and keep the animals from some opportunity of grazing?

Mr. Williams: That is not at all clever. The hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest said he hoped that the enclosure of 5,000 acres for timber production would not affect the commoners' rights. What I am trying to explain is that the commoners never exercised their rights, to the detriment of the Forest itself. Therefore, with regard to the land which the expert witnessess declare is useless for anything except timber growing, we propose that, where the verderers themselves assent to the proposal, such of it as is unsuited for grazing, or is extremely poor land, should be enclosed for this purpose. It seems to me that this proposition is a reasonable one. In any case, if the verderers were to assent to the enclosure of certain acres it would be many years before the full 5,000 acres were actually taken over.
I wish to make one other point about amenities before concluding. One of the verderers will be appointed to care for amenities, and amenities alone. It is therefore clear to me that grazing cannot be adversely affected, and if some acres which are more or less useless for grazing are taken over for afforestation, the amenity rights will not be subjugated for afforestation if the verderer representing amenities on the Court of Verderers is doing his duty. On all counts I therefore think that, from the point of view of making the best use of land, either for afforestation or for agricultural purposes, the New Forest ought to render its quota, and I think that Clause 12 is fully and amply justified.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I quite agree that the Minister and I will never agree on this if we go on all night. Nevertheless, when he gives a quotation he ought to give it fully. He quoted from the Baker Report, and I should now like to read the sentences one after the other, because I think that may make a different impression on the Committee. The Minister referred to the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture. The report says:
The representative of the Ministry of Agriculture said that 10,000 acres in all were useless for grazing but agreed that much of it


was scattered in small pockets and finally gave the reduced figure of 5,000 acres as suitable only for afforestation. Both witnesses"—
that is the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture and the expert witness—
admitted that they excluded all consideration of amenity from their calculations, and were speaking from a purely professional point of view. We have more than once expressed our conviction that the question of amenity is all important and that the use of the Forest for silviculture should be secondary.
Here is a statement by the two witnesses quoted by the Government that in giving the figure of 5,000 acres all question of amenity was ignored. We have the committee saying that they consider that silviculture must be secondary to amenity. Whether that is so or not I shall not argue, but certainly to my mind it destroys practically everything the Minister said, because here is the committee saying, first, that amenity is not taken into consideration in fixing this figure, and secondly, that in their judgment amenity must be paramount. That is the first point.
The Minister has not answered any one of the detailed points I put to him. He has not told us what steps he has taken to see that these 5,000 acres can be taken without preventing access to the commoners' cattle. He has put forward the view that the commoners' cattle are under-grazing the Forest, which is quite true, but one of the main purposes of the Bill is to enable more cattle to be pastured in the Forest. We are justified in saying that we shall have adequate cattle once the Bill becomes law, when we shall need all the resources we have at the moment.
The Minister once again has not faced the major issue, that if he is to ask for these powers, he must be able to justify them in detail to the Committee. That is the one thing he has not done, and it is the one thing the witnesses could not do before the Select Committee. Therefore, I hope my hon. Friends will vote against the retention of this Clause.

Mr. T. Williams: I must intervene again because the hon. and gallant Member

suggests that I have only quoted something which serves my particular purpose. He will recall that I said that one expert stated that 20,000 acres would be better under timber, and that the Ministry of Agriculture representative stated that 10,000 acres in all were useless for grazing, but that because it meant small pockets here and there he reduced his figure to 5,000 acres as being suitable only for afforestation. The hon. and gallant Member goes on to say that both witnesses admitted that they excluded all considerations of amenity from their calculations and that they were speaking from a purely professional view. That is quite true but the paragraph goes on:
It is however indisputable that increased timber production is one of the most urgent necessities of our time, and in view of the national demand we are compelled to consider to what extent the forest can make a contribution without loss of its essential characteristics.
Having taken all these things into account they proceed in the next paragraph:
In the absence of plans it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion, but we are ready to assume that 5,000 acres of the total stated to be unfit for grazing might be planted without damage to amenities or commoners interests.
The verderers will determine whether that is or is not so, not my representative. The five elected verderers will determine whether an area is useful for grazing, or whether it can be made useful for timber production. The hon. and gallant Member cannot reasonably sustain the claim that I have tried to deceive the Committee in not quoting the paragraph fully. If the Clause remains, I am quite satisfied that only those portions of the New Forest will be enclosed for afforestation which are practically useless for grazing and will be much better used for growing timber.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 249; Noes, 121.

Division No. 267.]
AYES
[5.45 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Attewell, H. C.
Barton, C.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Austin, H. Lewis
Battley, J. R.


Albu, A. H.
Awbery, S. S.
Bechervaise, A. E.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Ayles, W. H.
Berry, H.


Alpass, J. H.
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Binns, J.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Balfour, A.
Blyton, W. R.




Boardman, H.
Haworth, J.
Price, M. Philips


Bottomley, A. G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pritt, D. N.


Bowden, H. W.
Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Holman, P.
Pryde, D. J.


Bramall, E. A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Ranger, J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Horabin, T. L.
Rankin, J.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Houghton, Douglas
Reeves, J.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hoy, J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hubbard, T.
Richards, R.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Royle, C.


Burden, T. W.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Sargood, R.


Burke, W. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Scollan, T.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Carmichael, James
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Segal, Dr. S.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Champion, A. J.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Sharp, Granville


Chater, D.
Jenkins, R. H.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Simmons, C. J.


Cluse, W. S.
Keenan, W.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Cobb, F. A.
Kinley, J.
Skinnard, F. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Collins, V. J.
Lavers, S.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Cook, T. F.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Snow, J. W.


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sorensen, R. W.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Soskice, Rt. Hon Sir Frank


Cove, W. G.
Leonard, W.
Sparks, J. A.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Cullen, Mrs.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Stubbs, A. E.


Daines, P.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Swingler S.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Logan, D. G.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lyne, A. W.
Symonds, A. L.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McAdam, W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McAllister, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dear, G.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Delargy, H. J.
McGhee, H. C.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Diamond, J.
Mack, J. D.



Dobbie, W.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Dodds, N. N.
McKinlay, A. S.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Donovan, T.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Timmons, J.


Dumpleton, C. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Tolley, L.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Usborne, Henry


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Viant, S. P.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
Warbey, W. N.


Ewart, R.
Mellish, R. J.
Watson, W. M.


Fairhurst, F.
Messer, F.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Farthing, W. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Weitzman, D.


Fernyhough, E.
Monslow, W.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Follick, M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
West, D. G.


Forman, J. C.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mort, D. L.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Moyle, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Gallacher, W.
Murray, J. D.
Wigg, George


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Nally, W.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Gibson, C. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Gilzean, A.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Goodrich, H. E.
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Grenfell, D. R.
Orbach, M.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Grey, C. F.
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Grierson, E.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Pannell, T. C.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Pargiter, G. A.
Willis, E.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Parker, J.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Gunter, R. J.
Parkin, B. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Guy, W. H.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Woods, G. S.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Yates, V. F.


Hale, Leslie
Pearson, A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Peart, T. F.



Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hardy, E. A.
Popplewell, E.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Harrison, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Mr. Hannan.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Porter, G. (Leeds)








NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harden, J. R. E.
Pickthorn, K.


Baxter, A. B.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bennett, Sir P.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Price-White, D.


Birch, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hollis, M. C.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bossom, A. C.
Hope, Lord J.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bowen, R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Renton, D.


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. J. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Langford-Holt, J.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Byers, Frank
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Challen, C.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Scott, Lord W.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
McCallum, Maj D.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
McFarlane, C. S.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Davidson, Viscountess
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Touche, G. C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Turton, R. H.


Drayson, G. B.
Marples, A. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Drewe, C.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Duthie, W. S.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Eccles, D. M.
Mellor, Sir J.
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fox, Sir G.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Nutting, Anthony
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Odey, G. W.
York, C.


Gammans, L. D.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.



George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Osborne, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Studholme and Major Conant

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14.—(ENCLOSURES FOR CULTIVATION AND IMPROVEMENT OF GRAZING.)

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I beg to move, in page 8, line 26, at the end, to insert:
(3) Where it is so agreed between the verderers and the Minister, the Minister shall make to the verderers in respect of land for the time being enclosed by virtue of the foregoing provisions of this section payments of such amounts as may be specified in the agreement.
As my right hon. Friend made clear on an earlier occasion, this is one of those Amendments which theoretically are in the Bill but which, for reasons of Privilege, are not inserted by another place. I am moving now to insert the words.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. W. S. Morrison: On the previous Amendment the argument was put forward that forestry was an excellent thing, and therefore, the Forest must make its contribution towards it. That is not quite putting the situation in its proper light. This Clause, like the one we discussed last, is an enclosure Clause, and however admirable the objectives set out to be achieved by the enclosure might appear to those who advocate it, they have to be weighed against the undesirability from the public point of view of increasing the pressure to enclose more and more of this unique piece of common land.
It was said—and I have no doubt It will be said on this Amendment because the argument is equally relevant to it—that in the last resort those who have to consent to a specific proposal to enclose are the verderers, and that, therefore, they can be relied upon to withstand this pressure. What we are doing here is to create an instrument which will have


the effect of increasing the pressure to enclose part of the Forest.

Mr. Shackleton: Why?

Mr. Morrison: Because it makes it possible for the verderers to enclose up to 3,000 acres under this Clause for the purposes of grassland improvements. If so the enactment of this Bill means that the verderers will have to consider resisting, if they feel so disposed, a proposal which otherwise could not come before them. The consequence is that we have to rely entirely upon the verderers in this matter, and not upon Parliament at all. I am not going to repeat the argument, because that would be art abuse of the Committee, but I would refer the Committee to the argument that I used about the new constitution which is proposed for the verderers, because if we are to regard them as the only bulwark against this fresh pressure to enclose, it surely is relevant to remember that there has been a large invasion of nominated persons as opposed to elected persons.

Mr. Shackleton: What is the significance of the right hon. Gentleman's last remark?

Mr. Morrison: The significance of it is that whereas under the constitution of the verderers as laid down in the Act of 1877 there were six elected verderers to one nominated one, there are now to be five of each, and of the nominated five one of them is to be chairman and to have a casting vote. It is true and worthy of bearing in mind that by a provision under this Bill the verderer who is nominated by the Minister of Agriculture is not entitled to vote on a presentment for the purpose of this Clause, and that gives the elected verderers a majority of one. I doubt whether that is what we in this House would call a working majority for all purposes.
It is true that the nominated verderers may not agree with a proposal, and may come to the assistance of the elected verderers in resisting what they think to be improper, but my experience of persons nominated is that they tend to have a natural sympathy for each other's ideas. We should consider this proposal, not entirely on the agricultural merits of enclosing grassland, but balancing it against the fresh danger of enclosing a further parcel of 3,000 acres. When we

referred to this on Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman, who has had to leave us for a moment, produced an eloquent argument in the course of which he waved a magazine in which was published an article by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), with some photographs showing what had been done by a county agricultural executive committee in improving the grassland in the Forest during the war. At that time why was it not linked with any figures regarding the cost of those successfully re-seeded?
6.0 p.m.
It is very relevant surely to consider that question. There was some evidence on this subject given, I found, before the Select Committee by a very distinguished servant of the Ministry of Agriculture, who has given a lot of service to the Department and who knows what he is talking about. He is Mr. Arthur Richard Manktelow. In Question 433 he was asked what were the net costs of this experiment by the agricultural committee. He replied:
On the 300 acres which were cultivated and cropped, and which are to be returned for grazing this coming year, the accounts are still not complete because a certain amount of re-seeding has yet to be done, but, as far as we know, the net cost is not likely to be more than £4 per acre.
By the net cost I presume is meant the cost of the whole agricultural process, less the gains from the cultivation of the land. The next question was:
But you have not got the accounts out yet, have you?
The answer was:
They are not yet complete.
He was asked:
What about the other 300 acres? Have you got the accounts for them?
The answer was:
The other 300 acres, which were found to be not suitable for cultivation and cropping, did result in a substantial excess of expenditure.

Mr. Bracken: A groundnut scheme.

Mr. Morrison: He was asked what he called a substantial excess of expenditure, and what the figure was. He replied that the figure was about £6,000, on 300 acres. He was asked:
So that you succeeded in losing there £20 an acre?


He replied:
Yes, for the reason, as I say, that the land was found not to be suitable for cropping. Therefore, the committee did not get the advantage of the receipts from the three or four years of crops that they expected to get in the first place.
It is therefore clear, when we weigh the proposal that is before us in this Clause, that the operation is attended with a great deal of doubt and risk as to its advisability in the public interest. It is not at all the clear case that it appeared to be at first sight. Indeed, the Baker Committee, which has been quoted very often when it suited the case of the right hon. Gentleman, took a rather gloomy view of the whole proposal of this Clause.
I would first make the point which I tried to make in my Second Reading speech, that this elaborate process of fencing off, taking crops off the land, and then re-seeding after a term of six or seven years, is not the only way to improve grass land. We all agree in the desirability of improving grass land but, if I may quote and adopt as my own opinion the paragraph on page 43 of the Baker Report, I would say:
The large consensus of opinion expressed to us was that the cheapest and most effective way of improving and maintaining the quality of the grazing of the forest was to increase the head of cattle on it. With this we agree. It was pointed out that as a direct result of the increase in numbers of cattle turned out during the war the heather and other coarse herbage round the edges of some of the lawns are giving way to grass. Some, however, expressed doubt whether by itself this would be enough. They think that it will be necessary to cut or burn the rough stuff or else the change over to grass will take a very long time.
I think that may be necessary. When the Committee deal with the work of the war agricultural committees, to which I have just referred, they describe the process shortly, and they say:
We have been led to expect that the results will not be so favourable as supposed and that the net cost will probably work out at between £5 and £10 per acre.
Then, they say, the Ministry of Agriculture had put up an alternative proposal that
after the land had been cultivated and laid down to grass as in the experiment, the fences should remain and animals should be admitted by gates to graze part of the enclosure from time to time. In their view, permanent control of the grazing is essential to secure lasting results.

But they go on to say:
This proposal, like the experiment, applies to the lawns only, and the total area affected would not be more than 4,000 acres, but in both cases there would be a serious loss of amenity. Fences would be erected where there have been wide open spaces and the freedom with which people can ride or roam over the forest would be restricted
Then they give instances of particular beauty spots which would have to be excluded, and they say:
If they are disregarded, there still remains the question of cost, which would be a substantial addition to the verderers' expenses"—
that does not apply now, because the Ministry is to pay all that—
and must be balanced against the possible benefit to the commoners.
They add:
'We cannot include the proposal in our recommendations.
On the particular proposal before us, I would point out that the 3,000 acres seems to me, with limited knowledge, to be a very large amount of land to render subject to enclosure for this purpose. The county war agricultural committees' experiment extended to some 600 acres. It seems to me that until more work has been done on this matter, and until we know exactly what the areas are with which it is decided to experiment and their total effect upon the economics and amenities of the New Forest, we should not proceed with it but should follow the more sensible course of improving the grazing and increasing the cattle on it with such additional burning and clearance of the rough stuff as may be necessary. I do not think that a case has been made out for this further enclosure and I therefore do not agree with the Clause standing part of the Bill.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: There is little I would add to what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison). One of the points that have been made by the Government is that areas taken for conifer planting would be useless for grazing. It is clear that this 3,000 acres will have to come out of good forest land, valuable to the commoners. Any land so taken must reduce the potentiality of the forest for the use of commoners' cattle. That is the first point we should realise.
The second is that, whether these experiments be good or bad in the end,


the fact remains that they do not form a proper part of the New Forest economy. They are large tracts, generally in the middle of the forest. The Parliamentary Secretary will know the Forest and he will also know that many of these tracts are round Brockenhurst, right in the middle of the Forest and are no use whatever for the small commoner living on the perimeter of the forest. These commoners, for the most part, want to have the use of their traditional lawns, which exist round the perimeter of the forest. The institution of these new large areas in the centre is no good whatsoever to them.
The next thing, which the Parliamentary Secretary may have seen during his visit, is that once one of these areas which have been re-seeded is thrown open, it attracts all the cattle to it. I was through the Forest yesterday and I saw one of these tracts, which must have had on it about 100 head of cattle. The result is that such tracts are hopelessly overgrazed, and within a few months are of no further use. I will take two examples of areas which have been thrown open. One of them is close to the aerodrome and the other is just outside Wootton. Those two areas have been thrown open. They were extensively grazed for about six months; in fact they were overgrazed. They are now back to the state they were in before the Ministry took them over. The one at Wootton is covered with rushes and the other is already getting scrub gorse and bracken on it.
What is wanted in the Forest, if we desire to spend money to improve the pasture, is the drainage and reclamation, as my right hon. Friend said, by extra burning and clearing of gorse, of the traditional pastures. The first task is to see that next to every holding there is a feeding place for the mulch cows. By doing that we shall aid agriculture far more than by going in for this sort of speculative scheme which has not been proved.
Is the Minister satisfied that before the Hampshire Agricultural Committee took over any of these areas they took any soil tests to discover what these areas should grow? I think he will find that, instead of proceeding slowly and on a scientific basis on this matter, the Hampshire Agricultural Committee have just taken pot luck and in the result have lost a lot of public money. I support my right hon.

Friend and hope that we shall not allow the Clause to remain.

Mr. G. Brown: I cannot help feeling that there is in this discussion some hangover from the discussion on the previous Clause which has led us, in effect, to try to turn down a proposal which stands by itself and has no relation to the one we were discussing just now. The proposal has had the most beneficial result so far as it has gone. I cannot help wishing that hon. Gentlemen opposite would read a little more and pay a little more attention to the opinions of their own argricultural Members. Reference was made to the producing by my right hon. Friend of "Country Life" for 26th August in which there was a very excellent article by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd). I make no apology for producing it again. It ought not just to be tossed aside. The hon. Member for Newbury, as the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) will be the first to testify, knows what he is talking about and has a good deal of experience, quite as much as any hon. Member opposite except the right hon. Member for Southport.
We are now talking about improving pasture land. We are not now on the pines and conifers of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken). In these matters the hon. Member for Newbury knows as much as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, who might pay a little attention to his own hon. Friends who know something about it. It would be worth his while to look at that article. I doubt whether he has seen it or whether he knew it existed until I mentioned it. It not only shows very excellent pictures before and after of the areas tackled in the New Forest, but gives details of the results, and the hon. Member for Newbury makes one or two comments of his own. Incidentally, he says:
If the commoners of the New Forest can be satisfied that they will gain rather than lose by these proposals, it may well encourage the Minister of Agriculture to take his courage in both hands and propose that other common land should be dealt with in the same way.
There was the hon. Member for Newbury hoping that my right hon. Friend would be encouraged to take his courage in both hands and go on, and yet the Opposition have just been trying to damp down what


we have done. The hon. Member for Newbury also gives it as his opinion that if the whole 300 acres were enclosed, there would still be plenty of room for the other activities to go on. Clearly, there is a decided difference of opinion. I mention it not because I rely wholly on the hon. Member for Newbury, but to show that there are hon. Members on the other side who recognise the value of this.
I was interested in a very revealing statement with which the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) ended his speech. He said that until more work had been done on this we should not proceed. I thought that was extraordinary. The reason for the proposal in the Bill that there should be power to do it is that more work might be done. If we take that proposal out of the Bill, more work cannot go on. If we are not to proceed until more work goes on, it is difficult to see how we are to proceed.
6.15 p.m.
I believe there is a misunderstanding. What is proposed is not that, on the evidence of the 600 acres so far tackled, we should proceed with another 3,000 acres straight away, but that we should have the power—which is permissive and which, despite the suspicion and doubts of the right hon. Gentleman, is in the end in the hands of the elective verderers—to go on doing this experimental work which, as the right hon. Member for Southport will so well testify, has been such valuable work and has given us such valuable results hitherto. We require the power in order to go on, and with the Clause out of the Bill, the power to go on will not be there.
The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) said what I know to be true from the evidence of my own eyes. I was told only a day or two ago by someone who had been down in the New Forest at the weekend that on one of these reseeded areas a very heavy head of cattle was pasturing. I was told that it was something like 150 head of cattle on a 50-acre piece. The hon. and gallant Member seemed to think that completely destroyed the case for re-seeding. Surely it does not. The fact that the animals flocked there probably means that they

have at last found somewhere to get something to eat. The fact that they tend to flow on to these areas is in itself a justification for doing the job and suggests that if there is other land which could be tackled, it might be a good idea to tackle it, because we could then stop the over-cropping of the re-seeded land and carry rather more stock all over these lawns, thus increasing the head of cattle in the Forest.
I would draw to the attention of the hon. and gallant Gentleman that Clause 14 (4) lays down the powers which the verderers will have after the experiment has been carried through to try to secure controlled grazing so that the commoners shall gain the greatest value from the experiment. Hitherto, even if I could not agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I could understand his putting up a battle for what he thought to be the rights of the commoners on this, that or the other, but that is leading him and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth into queer fields now.
What is now proposed is that, by permission of the verderers, the State shall come in and spend money in the interests of food production and agricultural well-being to improve the land on which the animals of the commoners will graze, and, at the end of it, at no cost to themselves, the commoners shall be able to have available for their animals highly improved grazing places so that they can keep more and better animals. We are now being invited by the champions of the commoners to deny to the commoners the benefits which will come as a result of the State spending money on improving the grazing places of their areas. Whatever other arguments there are against doing this—there may be some—that one surely cannot be sustained.
This proposal cannot be objected to on the grounds of the commoners' interests. Spending money to produce the widest possible benefits may fall to be criticised in the general way, but I would remind the right hon. Member for Bournemouth and his hon. and gallant Friend that the tackling of marginal areas—he was talking about marginal land in Surrey earlier, and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) is very keen about the marginal lands of that area—is necessarily an expensive thing upon which one needs to experiment and to buy experience as one goes along. The


greatest danger which can be done to agriculture and to agricultural interests in the country is by loose talking about it—

Mr. Bracken: Loose spending is worse.

Mr. Brown: More damage will be done by loose talking. There is an awful backlog of failure to spend on the part of the Opposition which has to be made up. The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) who has just come in, is as big a villain of the piece in that respect as any other hon. Gentleman opposite.
The point I am making is that to take the figures for one area of 300 acres, which it was decided in the end was not yielding the results, and which was not, therefore, kept enclosed for a longer period during which income might have come in, would be a very bad way to deduce results for the whole question of improving the pastures of either the New Forest or of the marginal lands in this country as a whole. If one looks at it as a whole, on that basis the costs have been down to £4 an acre, and if one compares those figures of oat crops, of which the hon. Member for Newbury gave pictures with the pictures of cattle pasturing, and if one takes into account the hon. and gallant Gentleman's own experience yesterday where he saw the cattle rushing on to the re-seeded area, one gets a much more balanced picture of the costs and results.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The 300 acres which cost £6,000 were 300 selected acres, not an average of the whole forest. They were chosen by the agricultural experts of the locality as being likely to yield the best results, and yet the cost was so high.

Mr. Brown: I am not denying that in that area 300 acres were chosen as likely to be worth improving and turned out to be not worth it. I am only reminding the right hon. Gentleman that, if one is to tackle the question of improving the marginal land of this country, one has to be prepared for the fact that some areas will turn out not to have been worth it, but that is a necessary hazard of doing the job. So far as we have gone, our experience like that in the New Forest is that by and large it has been well worth while, even though there have been some areas where it has not.
The right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury said we must not consider it solely on agricultural grounds but proceeded hardly to consider it on those grounds at all. If we are to consider it on agricultural grounds I suggest that a considerable case can be made out for doing just what we are proposing to do, namely, to retain a permissive power to try to improve the grazings in the New Forest which will be so much for the benefit of the commoners.
The right hon. Gentleman said that this was an enclosure Clause. I ask that we be careful in the language we use here. An enclosure Clause would be a right definition if we were proposing permanently to enclose, but if the right hon. Gentleman will look at subsections (4) and (5)—as I am sure he has, though I am not quite clear whether his right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth has done so—he will see that it is precisely provided there that this shall not be an enclosure Clause in that sense; that when the land has gone through its rotation and has been improved, it goes back to the verderers as open land for pasturing, subject to any conditions they may make in the interests of the commoners. So we shall not enclose for a long period but merely for the period during which the improvement will take place.
Everybody who has considered this, whatever other criticism they have made, has said something nice about the results of the experimental work carried out so far in the New Forest. Even the New Forest Commoners Defence Association said that where re-seeding has already taken place the results are satisfactory and should provide an abundance of good grazing for the animals of the commoners. So there is a wealth of evidence that the work has been useful.
My right hon. Friend's nominee will not vote on this issue. In normal circumstances there will be a majority of elected verderers to decide it, the power is wholly permissive, it will be a decision of the verderers, and all the benefit—insofar as it does not accrue to all the people through better animals and more of them—accrues to the commoners and they will not pay a penny for it. I really shall be surprised if the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his right hon. Friends persist in refusing to


the commoners the possibility of a considerable improvement for which their fellow citizens are prepared to pay.

Mr. Bracken: We have just heard a speech from a junior Minister in which he rebuked my right hon. and hon. Friends for our lack of desire to spend more at a time when we are warned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Britain is slithering into bankruptcy. I can never criticise the Government for their failure to spend. That is about the only quality of efficiency they have shown since they came into office.

Mr. Brown: It is nice of the right hon. Gentleman to give way so soon. I take it that he will be aware that at the conference of his own party at Earls Court the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale), in winding up the Debate on agriculture, made as his great point that the party opposite would spend something like £30 million on reclaiming and improving marginal land, and it was that I was talking about.

Mr. Bracken: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) would not approve such fantastic schemes as the one suggested by the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No, he would not, and it is wrong for a Minister to come to the House today and denounce the Conservative Party for their lack of interest in spending money. We are right on the road to ruin and the Minister—[Laughter.] The Minister laughs. The Chancellor of the Exchequer does not. If he were here today and gave a frosty glance at the right hon. Gentleman, he would not encourage his junior Minister to indulge in this verbal extravagance.

Mr. McGhee: Only verbal now?

Mr. Bracken: And very much actual. The Minister quoted "Country Life" and suggested that we never read that publication. I am a lifelong reader of the paper and I am glad to know that the Minister has taken some notice of one article in it. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, "Country Life" is a constant critic of this Government and it is foolish to pick out one article from it which suits the purpose of the Government—

Mr. Brown: Why not?

Mr. Bracken: —and then tell us it is a kind of bible accepted by both sides. Again the Minister made no attempt to deal with the admirable speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. W. S. Morrison) who took the Minister through some of his arguments, for instance the evidence given before the Select Committee. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite have read it, but it is interesting. At each stage witnesses were asked, "Has this agricultural experiment in the New Forest paid?" Gradually the truth was drawn out of them that, largely speaking, big losses were incurred. I do not think the Minister will disagree with that. In point of fact, there has been no real profit and loss account produced for this agricultural experiment in the New Forest.
In its own small way I dare say it will be judged as being about as successful as the Government's frenzied groundnuts policy. The truth is that money was spent on a big scale on agricultural experiments in the New Forest but the Government's own witnesses admitted that they could not produce a profit and loss account. Therefore it is wrong to generalise, as the Parliamentary Secretary did, and say, "We had already tested the land and we found that, on the whole, we might go forward with this enclosure." That is to say, we might spend a great deal of public money on trying to discover whether we can produce good crops on the 3,000 acres which the Government propose to enclose. This is not a time for such expenditure. Furthermore, the traditional pastures of the Forest must not be touched. The Socialists are now the new enclosers and the gamblers—on both grounds one can convict the Government.
6.30 p.m.
At present they should leave the New Forest alone. We have not the resources necessary for the agricultural experiments that occur to the bright-eyed Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. The truth is that for many years to come we cannot engage in this business of testing out whether the New Forest can grow certain types of crops that the Government like. I have told the Minister already that the arguments put


forward by the Government for spending a lot more money on planting and growing in the New Forest were completely absurd. I said that if we were to accept their arguments, we ought to tear up the whole of Kew Gardens and grow brussels sprouts and cabbages instead of the plants which are there now.
I hoped that the Minister would have realised the absolute necessity of economy at this time and, on those grounds alone, refused to spend money on experiments in the New Forest, either in growing conifers or in enclosing land. I am very sorry that no representative of the Treasury is here tonight. There was a time when the Minister of Fuel and Power was a bailiff in charge of the Treasury for his master now absent in Paris. If a representative of the Treasury were here I might be able to appeal to him to aid me in voting down this proposal of the Government, which could not be more inopportune at the present time. For the many admirable reasons I have stated, I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against this proposal or perchance that the Minister of Agriculture, who has a great deal of good sense, will realise at the very last hour, that sometimes it is wise to be converted, and that the opportunity for him is now.

Mr. Shackleton: I do not know why my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture attempts to do anything for the New Forest in view of the line of talk which we now hear from the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), who represents a neighbouring constituency. He has intervened persistently in the Debate without the slightest knowledge of the issues involved, and his last speech is as mischievous and as party political as anything he has ever perpetrated in the House of Commons.
The whole line of discussion from the Opposition today has been on questions like whether or not there should be nominated members of the court of verderers. They were taking a very different line yesterday on the House of Lords, however, and they might have shown a different interest today. This proposal and the Clause itself are designed entirely for the benefit of the commoners of the New Forest. If it is not in their interests, I do not know why we are bothering about it at all. It may

be that we are wrong to consider the Clause. The only reason why we should do so is that the evidence of whether or not these temporary enclosures for improving grazing are of benefit to the New Forest is conflicting. There are a lot of people in the Forest who believe it is to their advantage. In fact, the expert on the New Forest—I think he was brought forward as an expert by the Commoners Defence Association—made it clear that the land which had been enclosed for growing crops had produced better grazing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is he?"] The Report goes back a long way, but I think he was Mr. Manktelow.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: He is from the Ministry of Agriculture.

Mr. Shackleton: I think it was Mr. Royston Askew.

Mr. Bracken: The hon. Member has now brought in the junior counsel to the Crown as an agricultural expert. If that is all that the hon. Member can do, I do not think he ought to go on speaking very much longer.

Mr. Shackleton: The right hon. Gentleman knows that he has not even attempted to read this document. The gentleman in question was Mr. Basil Sidney Furneaux, who stated—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will note this—that, in fact, the enclosures had led to an improvement in grazing. The extraordinary thing to me is that the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury should find himself in such company as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth on such an issue when he is faced with a serious agricultural problem. The Government are making an attempt to improve marginal land, and this type of thoroughly malicious and irresponsible criticism does no good at all.
Mr. Furneaux also stated that he saw no harm whatsoever in providing for the enclosure of certain land for growing crops with a view to improving the grazing, provided the verderers were able to say whether or not that course was desirable. That is precisely what they are able to say. But personally I do not think that this experiment is in any way a guaranteed success.

Mr. Bracken: Hear, hear.

Mr. Shackleton: I have heard the complaints. It is a serious problem to decide whether or not the land should remain enclosed afterwards. I, too, have seen large numbers of cattle in a very small area, and I think it is a very doubtful proposition. I personally am not prepared to support this Measure, but I consider that the line which the right hon. Member for Bournemouth and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) have taken has been

harmful in the extreme, and I hope that they realise they are doing no good either to the cause of agriculture or to the New Forest.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: rose—

The Chairman: I hope that the Committee will proceed to a decision.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes. 245: Noes, 120.

Division No. 268.]
AYES
[6.40 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Farthing, W. J.
McAllister, G.


Albu, A. H.
Fernyhough, E.
McEntee, V. La T.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
McGhee, H. G.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Follick, M.
Mack, J. D.


Attewtll, H. C.
Forman, J. C.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Austin, H. Lewis
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McKinlay, A. S.


Ayles, W. H.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Gilzean, A.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)


Balfour, A.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Barton, C.
Goodrich, H. E.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Battley, J. R.
Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Berry, H.
Grenfell, D. R.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)


Bing, G. H. C.
Grey, C. F.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Binns, J.
Grierson, E.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mellish, R. J.


Boardman, H.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Messer, F.


Bottomley, A. G.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mitchison, G. R.


Bowden, H. W.
Gunter, R. J.
Monslow, W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Guy, W. H.
Moody, A. S.


Bramall, E. A.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hale, Leslie
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mort, D. L.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Moyle, A.


Brown, George (Belper)
Hardy, E. A.
Murray, J. D.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville.
Nally, W.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Haworth, J.
Naylor, T. E.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Herbison, Miss M.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Burden, T. W.
Hobson, C. R.
Oldfield, W. H.


Burke, W. A.
Holman, P.
Oliver, G. H.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Orbach, M.


Carmichael, James
Horabin, T. L.
Paget, R. T.


Champion, A. J.
Houghton, Douglas
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Chater, D.
Hoy, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hubbard, T.
Pannell, T. C.


Cluse, W. S.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.


Cobb, F. A.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.


Cocks, F. S.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Parkin, B. T.


Collins, V. J.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)


Cook, T. F.
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)
Paton, J. (Norwich)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Pearson, A.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Peart, T. F.


Cove, W. G.
Jay, D. P. T.
Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)


Cullen, Mrs.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Popplewell, E.


Daines, P.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, R. H.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Davies, Haydn (St Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Price, M. Philips


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Proctor, W. T.


Deer, G.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Pryde, D. J.


Delargy, H. J.
Keenan, W.
Ranger, J.


Diamond, J.
Kinley, J.
Rankin, J.


Dobbie, W.
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Reeves, J.


Dodds, N. N.
Lavers, S.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Richards, R.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Robens, A.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Leslie, J. R.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Royle, C.


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Scollan, T.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Logan, D. G.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Ewart, R.
Lyne, A. W.
Segal, Dr. S.


Fairhurst, F.
McAdam, W.
Sharp, Granville




Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)
West, D. G.


Silkin, Rt. Hon. L.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Simmons, C. J.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Wigg, George


Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Skinnard, F. W.
Timmons, J.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Tolley, L.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Snow, J. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Sorensen, R. W.
Usborne, Henry
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Vernon, Maj W. F.
Willis, E.


Sparks, J. A.
Viant, S. P.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Steele, T.
Walkden, E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon A.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Woods, G. S.


Stubbs, A. E.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamslow, E.)
Yates, V. F.


Swingler, S.
Warbey, W. N.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Sylvester, G. O.
Watson, W. M.



Symonds, A. L.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Mr. Hannan.




NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Head, Brig. A. H.
Pickthorn, K.


Baldwin, A. E.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Price-White, D.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Birch, Nigel
Hollis, M. C.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hope, Lord J.
Renton, D.


Bowen, R.
Howard, Hon. A.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bower, N.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Keeling, E. H.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. J. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Low, A. R. W.
Scott, Lord W.


Byers, Frank
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Challen, C.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
McFarlane, C. S.
Smithers, Sir W.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crowder, Capt. John E.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
Maclay, Hon. J. S.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)


Drewe, C.
Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)
Studholme, H. G.


Duthie, W. S.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Eccles, D. M.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Touche, G. C.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Marples, A. E.
Turton, R. H.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Vane, W. M. F.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr, E. L.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.
Wakefield, Sir W. W.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mellor, Sir J.
Walker-Smith, D.


Fox, Sir G.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Mott-Radclyfle, C. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Galbrailh, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Gammans, L. D.
Nicholson, G.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Nutting, Anthony
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Odey, G. W.
York, C.


Harden, J. R. E.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.



Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)
Osborne, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Major Conant and




Mr. Wingfield Digby.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16.—(TRUNK ROADS.)

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page 9, line 31, at the end, to insert:
(4) In respect of the transfer of land under this section, compensation shall be paid to the Minister and to the verderers of such amount as may be determined by the said Ministers after consultation with the verderers, being, in the case of compensation to the verderers, the amount so determined to represent the capital loss from the interference with the rights of the commoners.

These are matters which were left out of the Bill for Privilege reasons in the earlier stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 19, at end, add:
(7) In respect of the power conferred by the last foregoing subsection, compensation shall be payable to the verderers for the interference with the exercise of the rights of the commoners, whether over the land authorised to be enclosed or other land, being compensation of such amount as may be determined by the said Ministers after consultation with


the verderers to represent the capital loss from the said interference, and in determining the said amount regard shall be had, among other matters, to the extent to which that interference will be lessened by the provision of crossings.
(8) Compensation payable under subsection (4) of this section shall be payable on the transfer giving rights to the compensation, and compensation payable under the last foregoing subsection shall be payable on the date appointed under subsection (5) of this section.
(9) If under the said Acts of 1936 and 1946 the existing trunk road is altered so as to include any part of another road in the Forest, and thereby any land in the Forest vests in the Minister of Transport, the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply as if the land had then been transferred to him under subsection (1) of this section:
Provided that—

(a) no compensation shall be payable to the Minister; and
(b) in determining compensation to the verderers the said Ministers shall have regard to the extent to which the rights of the commoners had been interfered with by reason of the existence of the said other road before it became part of the trunk road as well as to the other matters to which under the foregoing provisions of this section they are required to have regard.

(10) Any compensation payable under this section shall be paid out of the Road Fund."—[Mr. G. Brown.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17.—(ROADS OTHER THAN TRUNK ROADS.)

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page 11, line 23, at the end, to insert:
(3) In respect of the transfer of land under subsection (1) of this section compensation shall be paid by the highway authority to the Minister and the verderers respectively of the following amounts, that is to say—

(a) in the case of the Minister, of such amount as may be determined by the Minister and the Minister of Transport after consultation with the verderers and with the highway authority to represent the capital loss from the diminution attributable to the transfer in the revenue arising to the Minister from the granting (whether before or after the transfer) of such licences as are referred to in the next following section or from the granting of similar licences before the commencement of this Act;
(b) in the case of the verderers, of such amount as may be so determined to represent the capital loss from the interference with the rights of the commoners."

The explanation of this Amendment is the same as that for the last two Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to move, in page 11, line 23, at the end, to insert:
(3) A highway authority shall be empowered to construct grids or other similar structures to prevent uncontrolled ingress or egress of animals to or from the forest along the roads leading into or out of the forest:
Provided that where such a grid or other similar structure is made across a road, alternative access shall be made available by the provision of a gate or gates alongside the said road.
In the New Forest more and more of the smallholders and farmers are going in for T.T. milk production. I am sure the Ministry are as glad to see that as all of us are, but it means that every farm that goes T.T. reduces the number of cattle which can and will be turned out in the Forest. In a year or so it will become a matter of the utmost urgency for the verderers, if the situation continues, to have powers to make the New Forest into a T.T. area. The only way in which that can be done is by a provision such as this, whereby we can put cattle grids across roads.
I am assured that there are three county councils which at the moment have these powers, two in the North of England and one in the South-West. I wish to see the same apply so far as the New Forest is concerned. The Committee will see that the Amendment is purely permissive. It merely allows the highway authority, on the recommendation of the verderers, to have powers to turn the New Forest into a T.T. area, which may well be desirable from the New Forest angle and will, I am certain, be desirable from the Ministry's angle.

Mr. G. Brown: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman arrived back in time to hear his hon. and gallant Friend urge us to spend considerable sums of money on work in the New Forest, which will not find favour in the right hon. Gentleman's ears. We see how the position is reversed. I have a good deal of sympathy with this proposition, as I always have with the hon. and gallant Member's better propositions, which he puts forward on too rare and infrequent occasions. To undertake for the whole of the New Forest what is sought by this Amendment will be an enormous and costly undertaking. It is really a matter for the highway authorities to have the power to construct these grids.
There has been some discussion on the matter in the House by way of Questions, etc., and the Ministry of Transport have made it quite clear that the highway authorities' powers in this matter are clear—they have the power to do it. My right hon. Friend has made it clear that he would welcome these powers being made clear not only in this case but in the case of Exmoor, for example, where such grids would be a great help. On the whole, however, it would be better to deal with this matter by way of general legislation than to try to deal with it piecemeal in this specific case. I will not, therefore, dissent from any want of sympathy with the idea nor from any general feeling that there is not a good deal in this argument, but we feel that if there is something which requires to be cleared up it should be done in a general way. We have the assurance of the Minister of Transport that at a suitable opportunity he hopes to promote general legislation dealing with this question, and nothing will be lost if I ask the Committee to await that general legislation.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: While I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his reply, it leaves unanswered the point I made. In the New Forest there are these farms which are more and more rapidly turning over to T.T. herds. It is desirable to have general legislation no doubt, but this is something which is coming forward in the near future. If the Parliamentary Secretary can give an assurance that the Minister of Transport will promote legislation in the next Session, I shall be very happy, but if it is merely to be left as a statement that this will be done at a suitable stage, it leaves me slightly less happy.

Mr. Brown: I do not mind being in trouble with the hon. and gallant Member or his right hon. Friend, but I should not like to be in trouble with the Leader of the House. I cannot go further than say that the Minister of Transport has said that on a suitable occasion general legislation will be brought before Parliament.

Colonel Clarke: This question has been in existence for a number of years. In my own county we have had applications to put grids across roads where they come on to commons. I think the Minister of Transport

has been very slow in taking the necessary steps to promote legislation. I do not know what is the reason. There is some question of possible damage to vehicles and to other users of the road, but I feel it necessary that some active steps should be taken to expedite the matter. I know that a county council, of the roads and bridges committee of which I am a member, has for three years had this matter on the agenda but it is continually being deferred. I hope that the Minister will take active steps with his right hon. Friend to get something done now that we have this concrete case which will be coming to a head in about a year's time.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: We must accept the point of view of the Parliamentary Secretary when he says that this is more suitable for general legislation than for inclusion piecemeal in successive enactments. I should like to reinforce what my hon. and gallant Friends have said about the urgency of this matter and the increase in the number of T.T. herds, and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will exercise himself and make representations to his right hon. Friend that we should get on with this matter as quickly as we can.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page 12, line 4, at the end, to insert:
(5) Subsection (2) of this section shall be deemed to have applied as from the commencement of this Act to any land as to which a direction under the last foregoing subsection is given, and as respects any such land compensation of such amount shall be paid by the highway authority to the verderers as may be determined by the Minister and the Minister of Transport, after consultation with the verderers and highway authority, to represent the capital loss from interference with the rights of the commoners by anything done or to be done on the land after the commencement of this Act.
This and the following Amendment have again been omitted from the Bill up to this stage for reasons of Privilege.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 12, line 18, at the end, insert:
(7) For the purposes of the enactments relating to the defraying of the expenditure of


highway authorities and to grants in respect of such expenditure, any compensation payable under this section shall be treated as if it were compensation payable on the acquisition of land."—[Mr. G. Brown.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18.—(POWER OF MINISTER TO GRANT LICENCES.)

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page 13, line 23, at the end, to insert:
(3) As soon as may be after the end of each year in which any licence is granted under subsection (1) of this section the Forestry Commissioners shall ascertain the area of land in the Forest subject to rights of the commoners which have been abrogated or diminished in consequence of the granting of such licences during that year, and shall pay to the verderers such compensation in respect of the interference with the said rights of the commoners as the Forestry Commissioners may after consultation with the verderers determine.
The explanation of this Amendment is the same as I have given on the previous Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 21 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause.—(EXPENSES AND RECEIPTS.)

20.—(1) The expenses of the Minister under this Act shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament, and the receipts of the Minister thereunder in so far as they accrue under section fourteen of this Act shall be paid into the Exchequer, and in so far as they accrue under sections sixteen to eighteen thereof shall be paid into the Forestry Fund.

(2) The expenses of the Forestry Commissioners under this Act shall be defrayed out of the Forestry Fund.

(3) Any increase attributable to the provisions of this Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, shall be defrayed out of moneys so provided.—[Mr. G. Brown.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is a Clause which would have been in the Bill as Clause 20 but for reasons of Privilege, due to the fact that

this Bill was first considered in another place.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(AGISTERS TO HAVE POWERS OF SPECIAL CONSTABLES.)

Agisters employed by the verderers shall be granted the powers of special constables within the perambulation of the Forest:
Provided that the agisters to whom these powers are granted shall first be approved by the chief constable of the county of Southampton.—[Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause can be briefly moved. The point of issue is to try to grant the agisters, who are the servants of the verderers, and whose task is to see that the commoners' cattle is not interfered with, to have the powers of special constables. We feel that in an area such as the New Forest, which is very scattered, and where one may have to go a long way before finding a policeman, these powers are necessary for the agisters if they are properly to fulfil their task. The keepers of the Forestry Commission are special constables, and the agisters work closely with the keepers. We feel it right that they too should have the same powers. I hope that the Minister will be able to grant us this. It is a small matter and would do much to ensure the safety of the commoners' cattle and enable them to be properly looked after.

Mr. G. Brown: I will try to be as brief as the hon. and gallant Member has been and I hope that in doing so I shall not be thought discourteous. The Minister feels unable to accept this new Clause for a variety of reasons. One is that all in authority who have had to consider this matter—the Home Secretary, who has been approached on several occasions, the Chief Constable of Southampton, who would have to be responsible for the enrolling and maintenance of this force—have all expressed themselves against it on a number of general grounds.
7.0 p.m.
We do not think that there is any necessary reason for agisters to be special constables to enable them to carry out their duties of looking after the


commoners' animals. We do not feel that they would be in any stronger position. By virtue of being special constables they would not be authorised, for example, to enforce the by-laws as are the Forestry Commission keepers, who are in an altogether different capacity. We do not think that making the agisters special constables would strengthen their powers to prevent theft. In any case it does not follow—I am making no reflection on a body of men who no doubt do their work very well—that the people employed as agisters to look after the animals of commoners are ipso facto bound to be suitable for enrolment as special constables.
Nor does it follow that they would be available for general training which the Chief Constable regards as an important thing, or available for general duties as special constables. It would create some difficulty to have two bodies of men with different employment in the Forest both acting as special constables. It would create considerable difficulties for those responsible for the force and would not make any stronger the powers of the men concerned or ease their difficulties. In the circumstances, therefore, with those explanations, which I hope will be acceptable, I ask the hon. and gallant Member not to press this matter.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I must confess that I am very disappointed with that answer. In the first place, I do not think it reasonable to say that the agisters and keepers, who work with the greatest co-operation, might be liable to quarrel when they are special constables, just because they are under different authorities; any more than the Middlesex Police would tend to quarrel with the C.I.D. It is true that the keepers have to enforce the by-laws of the Forestry Commission, but the agisters have to enforce the bylaws of the verderers; that is their task. Just as it is of great advantage to be a special constable to enforce the Forestry Commission by-laws, so is it to enforce the by-laws of the verderers. The same arguments which made it seem necessary to the Minister to have his keepers as special constables apply to the agisters as servants of the verderers.
I think that the third point made by the hon. Gentleman was slightly unfair, when he said that agisters, just because they were agisters, need not of necessity be the type of people who could be

special constables. The same argument could be applied to the Forestry Commission keepers, and that just because men are employed as Forestry Commission keepers it does not automatically follow that they are suitable to be special constables. As the hon. Gentleman knows, men employed either as forestry keepers or agisters would be eminently suitable as special constables.
The hon. Gentleman said that agisters would not be available for general duties or training as special constables. I am certain that whatever duties, and I do not think they are many, that the Forestry Commission keepers are called upon to fulfil in this way, the agisters would be only too glad to do themselves. I would ask the Minister to think about this again, and to give his consent. It is a very small thing, but it does mean a great deal to the people in the forest. I cannot see that anybody will lose anything by it.

Mr. T. Williams: Out of sheer courtesy to the hon. and gallant Member I should like to make this concession, were it possible, but it just is not, in ordinary circumstances. It is however true, and this ought to be placed on record, that there is nothing to prevent an agister from becoming a special constable as and when he likes. But because he is an agister he is not necessarily a special constable. I consider my hon. Friend is quite correct and we could not have two sets of persons, one trained and one untrained, doing the same sort of job. That would be bound to create confusion. I hope that those who are going to be agisters will first of all make themselves special constables and get the appropriate training so that they may be more effective in doing their job.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

First Schedule.—(PREPARATION AND REVISION OF ELECTORAL REGISTER.)

Mr. G. Brown: I beg to move, in page 15, line 34, at the end, to add:
(8) The Forestry Commissioners shall make good to the verderers any reasonable expenditure incurred or to be incurred by the verderers in connection with the preparation, maintenance or revision of the electoral register.


This again is one of those parts of the Bill reserved for privileged arrangements.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported with Amendments; as amended, considered.

7.5 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
Although this Bill is concerned with a small area of England, it is none the less of immense importance, both locally and nationally. The New Forest is, after all, our one great national park, and is enjoyed by millions of visitors as well as those who reside near by. If this Measure helps to preserve the amenities, improves grazing, safeguards ornamental woods and makes better use of the poorest land for afforestation, it will be fully justified. I think it will achieve all those results.
With so many conflicting interests to reconcile within the New Forest, it was no easy problem to solve, and any Minister might well have been forgiven for handing it on to his successor. Our thanks are due to the Baker Committee, which devoted many months of patient work to sorting out the various problems so that we were able to produce constructive proposals. There were many consulations and negotiations, and though we may have failed to satisfy everybody, we have tried to do our best. This Bill found a place in our legislative programme. It has run the gauntlet in another place and survived the Select Committee, with typical British compromise before that Committee, and it is now on its last lap. It was never possible to satisfy every one of the diverse interests, but we did our best and I think we have achieved a good deal. If the Bill is administered in a statesmanlike manner I venture to suggest that it will not reduce but will add to the amenities and improve the forest generally, both for commoner and visitor alike. I hope that, having passed through the travail of all these various stages, there will be the highest degree of goodwill and co-operation among all

the verderers, whatever section they represent.
I wish to thank all those who have helped to smooth out the multifarious difficulties, and I would conclude by expressing my thanks to my legal adviser, Sir Denys Stocks, far his 153rd and last Parliamentary Bill. He has been a tower of strength, not only to me, but to all my predecessors. I wish him well in his retirement, which I hope will be long and happy. In commending this Bill to the House, I wish to associate his name with it. I wish the Bill well, and I hope that the New Forest will benefit as a result of it.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: There is little that I need add at this stage of the Bill's progress. As the Minister said, it has undergone a prolonged period of mastication at various stages by all sorts of interests, and though we have felt it our duty to point out what we considered to be blemishes in the Bill and to make suggestions of what we thought would be improvements, I only wish to say that I add my good wishes to those on whom the great national trust of the New Forest will fall. I hope that there will be harmony between all sections and that they will endeavour, if they are not satisfied with this or that representation, to work together like a band of brothers to preserve the New Forest.

7.11 p.m.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I merely merely wish to say that very often I have been the person to object to provisions in this Bill. Several times the Minister has used harsh words about the proposals I have made. Whatever have been our divergencies in trying to get the best Bill, I hope that all those in the New Forest will work together to put the Bill, into effect so that the New Forest will remain, as it has been, something enjoyed by countless thousands of visitors to this one place in England where the smallholder still exists because of his common rights.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Shackleton: I am delighted to hear the expressions from the Opposition, which I am sure are sincere, that the Bill is welcomed and will be worked to the best of their ability so far as they have any say in the matter. I have only one regret and that is that the right hon.


Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) is not a commoner of the New Forest and eligible to become a verderer himself.

COAL INDUSTRY (No. 2) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session (hereinafter referred to as 'the new Act') to provide for the making to colliery concerns and subsidiaries of such concerns of further income payments, it is expedient to authorise:

(a) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of any increase in the sums issuable thereout under the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1946'), which is attributable to the making of payments under the new Act;
(b) the raising under the National Loans Act, 1939, of any money required for providing or replacing sums authorised to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund by paragraph (a) of this Resolution;
(c) the payment into the Exchequer of sums received by the Minister of Fuel and Power under subsection (1) of section twenty-eight of the Act of 1946 by way of recouping the Crown expenses incurred by virtue of the provisions of the new Act; and
(d) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of sums so received and their application in accordance with subsection (2) of the said section twenty-eight."

COAL INDUSTRY (No. 2) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(PROVISION FOR FURTHER REVENUE PAYMENTS TO COLLIERY CONCERNS AND SUBSIDIARIES.)

7.13 p.m.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): I beg to move, in page 3, line 1, to leave out from "deduction," to the end of line 5, and to insert:
the aggregate of—

(a) an amount which bears to the amount of the deduction the same proportion that the amount of income tax ultimately borne by the concern or subsidiary for the income tax year the beginning of which falls within the year in respect of which the excess arises bears to the amount which its total income for income tax purposes for that income

tax year would be if it were computed without regard to any relief or deduction in respect of profits tax; and
(b) an amount which bears to the amount of the deduction the same proportion that the amount of profits tax ultimately borne by the concern or subsidiary (as determined in accordance with rules laid down by the regulations) in respect of the aggregate (as so determined) of its profits which are attributable to the year in respect of which the excess arises bears to that aggregate."

This Amendment deals with the taxation problem that may arise as a result of the Bill. The Bill provides that where revenue payments exceed the interest due, the excess is to be recovered by deduction from the capital compensation payment. Revenue payments are, of course, subject to Profits Tax and Income Tax and clearly this must be allowed for in calculating the amount to be repaid. We should not wish the companies to pay tax on more than they ultimately retain.
However, the correct drafting required to achieve this object has not been easy, and that is the reason for this Amendment. In the original draft it was provided that from the excess payment there should be deducted a fraction of that extra payment corresponding to the Profits Tax and Income Tax paid on the income of the company as assessable for Income Tax purposes. But the draft in that form did not allow for the difference which necessarily arises in calculating the amount of profits for Profits Tax purposes as contrasted with the amount of income for Income Tax purposes. In particular, it did not take into account the difference that necessarily arises in the accounting periods, because whereas the Income Tax year ends on 5th April the Profits Tax year may end on any date according to the accounting period of the company in question.
Therefore, in the Amendment the process of calculating what is to be deducted from the excess payment, before this in turn is deducted from the capital compensation due, is divided into two parts, one dealing with Income Tax and the other with Profits Tax. The Income Tax provision, paragraph (a), defines clearly the year that is to be taken into account as the one ending on 5th April whose beginning falls within the calendar year in which the revenue payments are made. That is straightforward. The second provision dealing with Profits Tax leaves the actual details to be settled by regulation,


because it has been found impossible, with justice to the companies concerned, to provide a sufficiently general formula in the Bill itself to cover every possible case. Hence the arrangement under which regulations will be made providing for the various different cases which will arise under the Bill.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: It would be an insult to the memory of Midshipman Easy to compare him with the present Government, because Midshipman Easy had both a brain and a spine; but in one respect the Government resemble Midshipman Easy—they suffer from an excess of zeal, particularly in legislation. I agree with the Minister that it is difficult to ask Parliamentary draftsmen to be quite certain of what they put down on paper. They have had a tremendously difficult time. I cannot say that we are all very grateful to them, but I think we thoroughly understand their difficulties. Improvements were required both in the verbiage of this Bill and indeed in its construction.
I am very glad that the Minister has proposed this innocuous but very useful Amendment so far as it affects shareholders and companies. We shall offer no opposition whatever. It appears to me that on this occasion coal is less controversial than the New Forest.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Peter Roberts: I wish to ask the Minister some questions. In subsection (5) he takes very wide powers. That provision states:
The Minister shall have power … to make regulations making such provision supplementary to or consequential on the foregoing provisions of this section.…
I should like to know the Minister's intentions. He will realise that the very first consequence of this Bill will be that the valuation proceedings will tend to slow down. As a result, he must make some regulations. I want to know what is in his mind in taking this power to himself. Obviously he would not take powers as wide as this without having something in mind. I should like to know whether he proposes to take powers by these regulations to remedy the slowness—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): I am sorry to interrupt, but I must point out that subsection (5) only gives the Minister power to make regulations arising from the provisions of the four previous subsections. I feel that the hon. Member's remarks are not in Order or relevant to this subsection. As a lawyer, I think that even if the Minister did make regulations along the line which the hon. Gentleman would like, a court might soon find them ultra vires.

Mr. Roberts: I have not made any suggestions for remedies or any recommendations, and I understand that the New Clauses standing in my name are out of Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Roberts: I have not actually mentioned them, and I would be out of Order in so doing, but I think I am entitled, the Minister having these powers to make regulations consequential upon this Clause, to ask what sort of regulations he intends to make.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is all right, so long as the hon. Gentleman keeps to that point.

Mr. Roberts: I have not mentioned any Amendment which may be out of Order, but I hope the Minister will take cognisance of them, anyway. What I am putting to the right hon. Gentleman is this. As a consequence of passing this Bill, he will, I am quite certain, have to make regulations under this subsection, and all I am hoping to see is that these regulations will be effective. There are three dangers in front of us as the result of passing this Bill, which dangers were not there before. The first is that the Minister will have to make some kind of payment for a compensation unit. Is he bearing that in mind, and what are his reactions to it? Secondly, the Minister must make regulations in order to hurry up the valuation board.

The Deputy-Chairman: Of course, as the hon. Gentleman is aware that is wrong.

Mr. Roberts: With respect, Mr. Bowles, I was not aware that it was wrong. I want to know what are the regulations which the Minister intends to make. Is he going to look upon this problem as if it did not exist, or is he going to realise


that it does exist? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that King's Counsel are being engaged at vast fees for the distant future? The Minister may not realise it, though I hope he does. I hope this matter is not being kept away from him in some way, but that he will realise what is going on. I hope he realises that National Coal Board officials are being taken away from their task of producing coal to go in for inspections and making reports and valuations, and that this may go on for years. I am quite certain—

The Deputy-Chairman: Has the hon. Gentleman finished?

Mr. Roberts: No.

The Deputy-Chairman: Then he must not go on along these lines, because, quite frankly, if he had read Clause 1 he would have seen that it deals with interim payments of interest, and has nothing to do with the question whether the valuation board is taking a long time or whether King's Counsel may be engaged. The hon. Gentleman must confine his remarks to matters that logically arise from subsections (1) to (4).

Mr. Roberts: On a point of Order. Under these provisions, interest is being paid where it was not paid before. As a consequence of that interest being paid, the shareholders are for the time being satisfied, but we were told before that the procedure was slow because the Minister wished to hurry up the compensation. The Financial Secretary told us that they were not paying the compensation because they wanted to hurry up the process. Now, we are paying compensation, and I am asking—I hope rightly—what is to be the result of the payment, when the very fact of these payments being made will lead to the consequence that there are bound to be—

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that is a very good point to make, but it does not arise here. I see the argument of the hon. Gentleman, and I see that it has some force, if I may express an opinion, but it does not come within the scope of this Bill. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman must confine himself more strictly to the point.

Mr. Roberts: I will say no more on the subject, except that I hope I have made my point and that the Minister will realise the force of it.

Mr. Gallacher: I would like the Committee to reject this Clause, which I think is very undesirable and one that nobody in this Committee should be prepared to support. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) will be aware of the fact that it was a common practice in Scotland to provide "subs." for hard-up workers. By the word "subs." subsidies were meant, but it was always the practice of the better type of trade unionists to oppose them. This is going back to the very bad old days of "subs." for the workers who could not last out the week. If a worker could not last out the week, he went to his boss and got five or six bob.
The provisions of this Clause are to have effect in respect of 1949 "and subsequent years." Is there any hon. Member who will support that? When we received the original Bill, two years was the limit. The job had to be done in two years. Now we have a provision covering subsequent years. I want once again to direct attention to the fact that conditions change very radically and sometimes very rapidly. If I am permitted to draw an illustration from the previous Debate, I would point out that we had a situation this evening in this Chamber in which hon. Members on this side were supporting enclosure and the Tory aristocrats on the other side were opposing it. Let hon. Members consider that. A complete turn of the wheel often takes a long time, but we may sometimes have a turn of the wheel in a short time. It may be that, if the colliery owners have not finished their settlement by 1950 or 1951, we may come to a decision not to give them any compensation at all and bring in another Bill to withdraw the provisions of the previous one, and yet all the time they will be getting "subs." and we should have no way of making them pay back the "subs." if we decided to stop paying the compensation.
Therefore, I ask the Minister not to carry this Clause through, but to agree to make the change. If we make a concession to him, will he make a concession to us? If we agree to another "sub." for this year, will he agree not to give them any further "subs.," and, if they do not finish by 1949, to scrap the lot and pay them no more, which is the very best


thing that could happen? That is why I propose the rejection of this Clause, unless the Minister is prepared to confine its provisions to 1949 only, instead of continuing to give "subs." to coalowners for subsequent years.

Colonel Clarke: I ask the Minister to enlarge upon the regulations which are referred to in line 31, in subsection (5). I know this is a complicated subject and that this Bill has taken some drafting, but I cannot quite envisage what is and what is not covered by this omnibus phraseology of subsection (5). Later on, it becomes more particular and defines certain things which may be legislated for by regulations. It seems to me that the first part of subsection (5) is simply designed as a safeguard in case something goes wrong. I do not think that is really very desirable.
As the Minister knows, I dislike regulations unless they are absolutely necessary. I feel that if legislation is worth enacting, it should be put in the Bill which we discuss here and not brought in later by regulations which never get properly discussed. Therefore, I hope he will explain to the Committee why this is put in. It looks to me a little like one of those safeguards that draftsmen and civil servants are rather apt to insert in order to save their face in case they have forgotten something and which get filed away and about which nobody thinks for a long time, until a case is brought, when it is found that a provision of this sort is in the Act and prevents real justice from being done or satisfaction being obtained.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Gaitskell: I must try to avoid getting out of Order, but I am sure, Mr. Bowles, you will appreciate that I must say something on what the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts) said. I think I am safe in repeating what you yourself said—that these regulations in subsection (5) are, of course, to provide for the recovery of over-payments and have nothing whatever to do with alterations in the compensation procedure, and could not be used to make any alterations of that kind. The hon. Member for Ecclesall will appreciate that if I were to go further than that, I should at once put myself out of Order. But if he wishes

to discuss the matter further with us we shall be happy to do so.
I think that the hon. Member is under a misapprehension about the present position. Perhaps I can best describe the regulations that we shall make under subsection (5) by referring him and the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) to the regulations which we have already made under Section 22 of the 1946 Act which, in effect, relate to procedure for settling the timing and the way in which compensation moneys are to be paid. In this case, of course, they would relate to the way in which the recovery of over-payments is to be secured, and how precisely the amount is to be estimated. I have already given the Committee one instance in connection with the Income Tax and Profits Tax arrangement, and I do not think I can add anything to that. I know that both the hon. Member for Ecclesall and his hon. and gallant Friend are familiar with the regulations made, and these will be similar. That is really all there is about it.
As regards the point raised by the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), I would again point out to him that this Bill does not provide for any compensation to coalowners; all it does is give them a little on account. If I am not mistaken, the hon. Member for West Fife voted for this Bill in an earlier stage. I do not think he voted against the compensation Clauses of the original Bill in Committee, and I suggest to him that he would be quite safe, therefore, to continue as he did then and let the Bill go through.

Mr. Gallacher: I supported the Bill against the party opposite. I had a proposition for compensation different from that in the Bill, but it was not accepted. Therefore, I had to support the Bill even though it contained the burden of compensation. However, if at any time I have the opportunity of throwing off that burden, I will certainly do so. In the meantime, I should like the Minister to tell us how many years are involved by the phrase "subsequent years."

Mr. Bracken: It is rather awkward getting involved in this comradely argument, but I must say to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that he is likely to be classified as a Trotskyite or


a deviationist. M. Maisky used to boast to me that Russia always fulfilled her word, and always paid interest on her bonds, but here we have a Trotskyite and a deviationist asking the Minister to break the Communist first commandment. Tito's fate is nothing like what will be the fate of the hon. Member for West Fife.

Mr. Gallacher: The undertaking which the Minister gave, and which I supported, was proposed for two years, by the end of which time the shareholders had to finish their wrangling. They have not finished, and I am against giving them any more.

Mr. Bracken: Whatever methods are used to convict the Trotskyite, the hon. Member for West Fife will never go quietly, whether drugged or beaten up. I look forward to his defence when the Day of Judgment comes.
So far as we are concerned, we cannot pretend fully to understand the Minister's explanation. We make no complaint about that because, in point of fact, he has been skating on very thin ice. If I may say so, Mr. Bowles, we really got the best advice we can possibly get from yourself as a friend of the Committee rather than as the headmaster, so to speak. You have given us an indication of what is not in Order, and, generally speaking, we can allow the Committee to pass on to other business by saying that, in so far as we understand it, we accept the Minister's explanation and your Ruling.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

CLOTHING INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Draft Clothing Industry Development Council Order, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th September, be approved."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

7.38 p.m.

Sir Peter Bennett: I had expected that we should

hear something from the President of the Board of Trade to justify this order being put before the House. Perhaps if I talk long enough, the right hon. Gentleman will come in. I should like to give him that opportunity, because this is an order on which some of us feel quite strongly. I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman has now arrived, and I should like him to know that I have done him a good turn by keeping the Debate going.
When the Minister introduced the order for the jewellery trade, I supported him because, as I explained at the time, he had obtained the voluntary co-operation of a large majority of the employers in that industry, an industry with which the city in which I live is intimately acquainted. I told the right hon. Gentleman at that time that occasions might arise when I should not be in the happy position of supporting him, and this is one of them. On this occasion, the Minister has not got the co-operation of the industry concerned. When the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, came into being, making these orders possible, the Minister at that time, who is now the Paymaster-General, made it perfectly clear that the Government had every intention of proceeding by agreement rather than by compulsion. That was on 3rd June, and it was repeated by the Government spokesmen in another place. The Chancellor of the Exchequer also said that the council would depend for the success of its efforts on the willing co-operation and support of all persons or bodies associated with the industry. I supported the Minister on that occasion because he had obtained this co-operation.
In the present instance he has not done so. So far as I can gather, the whole or the large majority of the interests connected with the manufacturing side are opposed to this Order. They say that this is not the class of industry to which it can usefully be applied. In fact, it is not an industry. It is a group of industries. I do not know how many sections there are. There are about 201 associations connected with this industry, and they claim that they get together and co-operate as and when it is necessary.
They say that to have one council and one organisation to handle everything from ladies' corsets to waterproofed overcoats, from machine-made clothing to bespoke tailoring, from all the small


pretty-pretties which ladies use, to the big heavy overcoats which men wear is an absurdity. There is no industry; it is a group of industries. Yet the Minister is taking advantage of the powers under this Act to force a development council upon a great many unwilling manufacturers after assurances were given that unwilling industries would not be compelled and that the Government believe in co-operation. They will not get co-operation. It is not possible to get willing co-operation by forcing on to a series of industries something which they do not want.
It is unfortunate that I had to start my speech before the Minister came into the Chamber. I would much sooner have heard his reasons. However, I am giving my reasons in advance, and no doubt he will give some sort of answer. Whether it will satisfy us, I do not know. He has not been able to satisfy the various associations in the clothing industry. Many of us have always urged that industries should put forward a voluntary scheme. On this occasion the Ministry say that it is impossible. I understand—I was not present, and I can only say what I have heard—that it was intimated by the Minister or his associates that it was no good the industry working out a voluntary scheme because the Ministry were not prepared to accept it. Why the Government are forcing this Order on an industry which does not want it, I do not know. No doubt, we shall hear. I can only believe that it is because there is pressure from the trade union side.
Here is an industry which is not organised in the normal way. There are many unions and groups, and my information is that only a minority of the workers in it are in any union at all. The large majority are outside. If, therefore, the minority of those employed in the industry are asking for something for which the majority have not asked, and the whole of the organisations representing the employers are opposed to it, I say that the Government are not carrying out their undertaking that they would not force this order on unwilling people and that they would look for co-operation. I shall be prepared to vote against this order when the time comes.

7.45 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I do not propose at the moment to follow the hon. Member for Edgbaston (Sir P. Bennett), who nobly stepped into the breach, in his arguments about the extent to which this order is being forced on an unwilling industry, but before I conclude I hope to deal with that point at some length.
The Development Council Order, which is now presented to this House for approval in accordance with the requirements of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, is the fifth order to be made under that Act, and it is the fourth order setting up a development council under that Act. It follows fairly closely in form the precedents set by the orders approved by Parliament last year under which development councils were set up for the cotton industry, the furniture industry and the jewellery and silverware industry.
Before I give the House an account of what the order provides for and, in accordance with our usual procedure in these Debates, a summary of the consultations that have taken place with the industry, I should like to remind the House of one or two facts about the industry. Obviously every member of the population is interested as a consumer in the products of the industry, the efficiency of the industry, the quality and price of the goods that it makes, as well as the contribution it makes to our export trade, and the demands it makes on our resources of manpower.
All these things are matters of national concern. I have no doubt the House is well aware of its importance in terms of production and employment. With a total production estimated at £300 million a year and a total manpower of between 400,000 and half a million employed on productive processes, it is one of our largest industries. Although its exports are still only a small proportion of the industry's output, they have grown in recent years, and in 1948 reached a little over £13 million of which nearly £4 million went to hard currency markets.
What is of great importance to this House in considering the proposal for a development council for the industry is the structure of the industry. There are in the industry 5,000 firms employing


more than 10 workers, and in the great majority of these the staff employed numbers fewer than 100. In addition, there are a large number of small firms employing 10 persons or less. How many of these smaller firms there are it is not even possible to say. In 1935 they were estimated at 20,000. Probably the number is somewhat smaller at the present time.
As the hon. Member for Edgbaston has said, it is an industry divided into a very wide number of sections and types of product and, of course, the loosely knit structure of the clothing industry is a natural consequence of its size and its rapid growth during the last century, and more particularly of the ease with which new firms can come into the industry. It is an extremely difficult one to bring together, and it is not surprising that there has been a tendency in the industry to set up separate trade organisations for each section, and for sub-divisions of these sections, sometimes without any machinery for joint consultation or common action.
As a result, it has been necessary in the course of negotiations about this proposed development council to consult altogether some 25 separate bodies, each of them claiming to represent substantial numbers of employers in the industry. Besides these 25 bodies there are a number of local organisations, some of which, but not all of which, are branches of the central organisations or are affiliated or federated with one or another of them. I do not think it can be claimed that the trade organisations which do exist are fully representative of the industry. According to information supplied by the Heavy Clothing Working Party, the total membership of all the central organisations does not appear to exceed about 6,000, which means that three-quarters of the firms operating in the industry are not directly represented by these organisations.

Sir P. Bennett: That figure does not represent the weight of the organisations, does it?

Mr. Wilson: I was going on to say that these 6,000 firms do, for the most part, include most of the larger firms in the industry, and therefore cover a larger proportion of the total production. I do

not think anyone knows what is the proportion. A certain proportion is claimed, but I do not think anyone has the accurate figure. The absence of figures in the industry is one of the remarkable things about it.
Despite the multiplication of these trade associations on the employers' side, the industry cannot be said to be fully and satisfactorily organised, and this is a fact which has made consultation and negotiation difficult in the past in connection with many other matters besides that of the establishment of a development council. Moreover, the absence of any single organisation covering the major proportion of all the various sections of the industry has prevented the industry from working out and pursuing a common policy and has been one of the main reasons why the evils from which the industry has suffered severely in the past—for instance, shoddy production and seasonal unemployment—have not been overcome and are likely to return when and if supply again exceeds demand.
I come to the proposals for a development council. First, may I remind the House that some kind of central body was recommended by all the three working parties which reported on the three main sections of the industry, two of them actually recommending a development council. The Heavy Clothing Working Party Report, which was submitted before the passing of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, proposed the establishment of a Council of the Heavy Clothing Industry under an independent chairman and including independent members and representatives of employers and workers in the industry. The report said this:
We consider not only that the need for a central organisation is evident, but that the establishment of such a body to perform those functions which are not covered by the existing organisations, and which cannot, or should not, be undertaken by the Government is essential to the well-being and efficiency of the industry.
It was recommended that a levy should be raised from the industry to finance the council in the carrying out of its functions and that a register should be compiled of all firms in the industry.
The reports for the other two sections of the industry were made when the development council pattern provided for in the Industrial Organisation and


Development Act was known to the members of the working party and each of the two working parties recommended a development council as the appropriate form for the central organisation to take. The Light Clothing Working Party Report said:
We have come unanimously to the conclusion that the best solution lies in the establishment of a single Development Council, but on a federal basis, providing the maximum degree of autonomy for the Light Clothing and Heavy Clothing sections of the industry.
The Rubber-proofed Clothing Working Party Report said:
We think that the rubber-proofed clothing industry would have everything to gain from the setting up of a Development Council for the Clothing Industry, sharing in the benefits of any general work sponsored by it, and able to bring to its attention the special problems of the rubber-proofed clothing trade.… We recommend that, in any Order setting up a Development Council for the Clothing Industry, provision should be made for direct representation on the Council of the rubber-proofed clothing industry.
The provisions of the draft Order, which require the Council to set up separate committees for the heavy, light and proofed sections of the industry, represent an attempt on our part to implement all those recommendations within the framework of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act. Since this will undoubtedly be the main point we shall be discussing tonight, I should like to give the House an account of the consultations which the Government have had with the industry in accordance with subsection (3) of Section 1 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act. Discussions with trade associations in all sections of the industry on the subject of a development council began in November, 1947, and continued during December of that year—two years ago. On 13th January, 1948, I met representatives of all sections of the industry and proposed that a development council should be established for the industry to deal with the problems discussed in the working party reports.
I promised to circulate a memorandum setting out a draft scheme in some detail, though naturally in a tentative form, for comment by the industry, and this memorandum was circulated to the industry on 2nd March, 1948. In reply to this, the majority of the employers'

organisations—but not all of them—said that they were opposed to the establishment of a development council. Three substantial employers' organisations, however, and the two unions representing all the organised labour in the industry, declared themselves in favour of a development council.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: Would the right hon. Gentleman say which organisations were in favour of the development council?

Mr. Wilson: I will give the House that information before the Debate concludes. I have it here, although I cannot recall at the moment which they are. I can remember only one name. A number of leading manufacturers who are members of the opposing majority organisations have also expressed themselves in favour. A number of other employers' organisations expressed no views, presumably being neutral on the proposition.
In addition to the general expressions of approval or disapproval, a number of detailed comments on the proposals were received. All these points were considered during the summer and autumn of 1948 and on 9th November—almost exactly one year ago—I again met all sections of the industry and heard their views on the memorandum which had been circulated in March. I told them that I considered a development council was necessary for the well-being of the industry and that I would circulate draft heads of an order for their comments. This was done 10 days later and the comments received on the draft heads did not vary substantially from those received on the original memorandum, and the degree of support and opposition was unchanged.
The next step was taken in January this year, when the proposals were published as a non-Parliamentary publication. Attention was drawn to the proposals by means of Press notices and all persons likely to be affected by the order were invited to comment on them. The trade associations commented as before. Comments were also received from individual manufacturers, some welcoming the proposals, some suggesting detailed amendments and one objecting to the establishment of the council.
On 15th March I wrote to Sir Herbert Kay, who has been the principal spokesman for the opposing organisations, suggesting a further meeting. On 26th April my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary met representatives of 16 trade associations in the clothing industry. At the meeting he re-stated the case for a development council and said that the Government, having given very careful consideration to all the comments received, were satisfied that a council was desired by a substantial number of persons in the industry and that it would be a great benefit to the industry. He made a last appeal to the employers to co-operate in working out the detailed proposals to ensure that the order which would eventually be laid before this House operated fairly as between one manufacturer and another and one section of the industry and another. The answer to this last appeal for co-operation came after a joint meeting of the opposing organisations on 1st June. The meeting re-affirmed its opposition to a development council and declared that it was not prepared to discuss the structure or activities of the development council.
I have to inform the House that this Order, unlike those previously approved by the House, is not unanimously supported by the two sides of the industry concerned, though I think the record I have given of the negotiations covering a period of two years will show how much the Government have done to try and get the co-operation referred to by the hon. Member for Edgbaston and referred to in the quotations which he has read to the House. But the fact that this development council order is not unanimously accepted by both sides of the industry, as were the two previous orders we have debated, makes it therefore doubly incumbent on me—and I recognise this—to explain to the House why, in the Government's view, a development council is needed and why it is in the highest interests both of the industry and of the country, even though this means detaining the House a little longer than I should otherwise have wished.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: Is the right hon. Gentleman now going to give us the names of those three employers' organisations which were in agreement with the proposals for a development council?

Mr. Wilson: I have them here and I will let the hon. Member have them before I sit down, but if I were to depart from my speech to turn over papers to look for them now it would delay us a little. I shall certainly give the information to the hon. Member. I know one was the Bespoke Tailors' Guild. I cannot remember who the other two were.
In the view of the Government, and in the view of the three working parties, and of substantial numbers of persons on both sides of the industry, the case for a clothing development council is well established. I have already quoted the views of the clothing working parties on the need for a central body for the industry. The reasons which brought them to this conclusion, and the reason why the Government, after long consideration, have come to the same conclusion—and after very full discussion with the interests concerned—are based on the existence of a number of problems of vital concern to the industry and, indeed, to the nation, which require the attention of some effective central organisation.

Mr. William Shepherd: I want to get this quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is a considerable number of people on both sides of the industry who are convinced of what he is going to tell us. Would he support that with some facts? Could he, for instance, say what is the substantial number of people on the employers' side who subscribe to these proposals?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir. I have referred to the fact that in addition to the three organisations, and also in addition to the letters I have received, a number of individuals in the trade and in the associations that opposed the proposal, there has also been a number of leading figures who have made reference to this. For instance, I well remember at a gathering of the light clothing industry hearing one leading figure in the trade at that time make a speech in favour of a development council for the industry. Certainly, the impression that the whole of the employers' side is unanimous against this proposition would be completely false. At the same time, I would not suggest that those on the employers' side who are in favour of the proposal are anything but a minority of the employers.

Mr. W. Shepherd: A small minority?

Mr. Wilson: Now I can tell the names of the three organisations to which I have referred. They are the Master Ladies Tailors' Association, the Light Clothing Contractors' Association and the Bespoke Tailors' Guild. Those are the three that declared their support for the principle of a development council, but it is fair to say that the third of those organisations has subsequently—not declared its opposition to a Development Council—but in its reply to us been rather more non-committal, and is no longer in support of the proposals.

Mr. S. Shephard: May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that two of the organisations he has mentioned are not organisations of manufacturers, but only sub-contractors? It is not a very fair argument to maintain that they are representative of the industry.

Mr. Wilson: I have not suggested that they claim to be representative of the whole industry. I suggest, however, that they have the same claim to be representative of their constituents as the other organisations. They are on the employers' side of the industry, and we must take as full account of what they say as of what any other group of employers in the industry says. I have not noticed the same interest on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite in the expression of views of the trade unions in the industry as they have shown in the views of the employers.
Now if I may revert to the point I was making—the problems of concern to the industry and to the nation which, in the Government's view, require the establishment of some effective central organisation. First of all, there is of course, the outstanding need in this industry, as in many others—the need of increased productivity. [Interruption.] I am certain that the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is not an authority on this industry.

Mr. Shurmer: The noble Lord does not want increased clothing.

Mr. Wilson: I should prefer on any question in this industry to have the views of the authorities in this industry on both sides, and the independent views of the Working Parties, to the opinions of the noble Lord. But it is a fact, as the Working Parties suggested, that much can

be achieved by the improvement of technical efficiency in the industry, especially in the improvement of factory layout, machinery and equipment, lighting, and production methods. Of course, the most efficient firms and the most progressive firms in the industry have gone a tremendous way in this direction, and have done a tremendous amount to show the others—and, indeed, industries in other countries—what can be achieved. The working party reports make it clear that present conditions in the greater part of the industry leave a good deal to be desired, and especially they give the impression that research, investigations, and the dissemination of information and guidance by a central organisation would be the best means of securing an improvement.
Secondly—and I follow the working party report again, there is export promotion. In the present state of our national economy, any manufacturing industry which requires a labour force approaching 500,000 must be expected to make a considerable contribution by means of exports to our balance of trade. In the past quarter of a century the export performance of the clothing industry has been very small, though certain sections of the industry and a number of industrial firms have recorded tremendous achievements, not least in the dollar areas, in the last two or three years; and hon. Members of this House have played a leading part in missions to dollar areas to increase the exports of the clothing industry.

Sir P. Bennett: Surely the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the clothing of our own people must be a first necessity? They cannot do any work if they have not any clothes, and so a large proportion of the industry's output must go to our own people.

Mr. Wilson: I certainly agree, and I think that my preoccupation with the problem of finding clothing must show the hon. Gentleman that I can support his view on the question of providing clothes. But, at the same time, the problem of feeding our people is also very important, and the fact is that we have imports that have to be paid for, and it is certainly true that the clothing trade could do more than it is doing in that direction. I recognise that that would be


in the face of enormous difficulties, but no matter what those difficulties may be the building up and maintenance of a considerable export trade in made-up clothing on a much wider scale—by a much wider range of firms—must be regarded as one of the most important objectives of the industry. This will require a good deal of planning, guidance and advice such as can be provided economically and effectively only by a central organisation.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Still planning?

Mr. S. Shephard: Is this Development Council to supersede the right hon. Gentleman's own Department?

Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. The Development Council in the cotton industry has done an enormous amount for the cotton industry, as anybody connected with that industry knows, and yet it has not in any sense tried to supersede the Board of Trade. There is a good deal of work, as we have seen, in the cotton industry in Lancashire—and as I hope to see in this industry—that a central body of this kind can do, collaborating with the Board of Trade and other Departments concerned.
A third problem to which the working parties drew attention is that of seasonal fluctuations in production and employment, and short time working at particular seasons of the year. Both the Heavy and Light Clothing Working Parties regarded this as a most important task for the council to deal with, and they made certain suggestions as to the means which might be adopted to mitigate what anyone connected with the trade recognises has been a great evil in the past.
The House will not need to be reminded, I know, of the importance of the establishment and maintenance of proper standards of quality for the products of the industry, with a view, not to standardisation, because none of us seeks that in the matter of clothing production, but with a view to the elimination of shoddy production; and this point was also stressed by the working parties. The working out of suitable standards is a highly technical matter. We have made great advances on it during and since the war in the field of utility production, and it is one which a body fully representative of the industry would be specially qualified to promote.
There are, again, labour and training problems, because in the past the industry has been able to rely on a plentiful supply of cheap labour, and in the future it will have, undoubtedly, to work on a much more economical use of its labour force. Apart from a better utilisation of labour which can result from improvements of equipment and production methods, the working out and general adoption of a sound costing system, so far as possible uniform in the industry, should do much to render economies in the use of labour practicable. The training of workers and—no less necessary—the training of the management side of the industry is also capable of improvement.

Mr. Osborne: Who is going to train the management? Who is going to train a man who is successful in business and who in a competitive world must keep his head above water? Who is competent to train him?

Mr. Wilson: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that question as well as I do, and probably a good deal better. He knows the arrangements already existing in the matter of technical colleges and other means of training. [Interruption.] I suggest that the noble Lord should spend some time in Lancashire to see the arrangement made by the Cotton Board, not so much by way of direct training themselves but by a multiplicity of methods, through local education authorities and so on, in giving training on the management side. It is a fact that management in any industry does involve training, and it is certainly not in the best interests of this nation in the future, as in the past, that in many industries management should not be a question of training and ability but of inheritance.

Mr. Osborne: I think that is a very unfair observation because the right hon. Gentleman must know that in Lancashire there is an old saying, "Clogs to clogs in three generations." Most businesses in Lancashire have been built up by men who started at the bottom, as I did. It is an unwarrantable suggestion that those of us who run industries have done so because we inherited the position.

Mr. Wilson: I did not suggest that the majority of people in Lancashire got their positions by inheritance. I was suggesting that there are now facilities for training


those who want to climb up the industrial ladder themselves and who have had no training in certain technical matters. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I are in agreement on that. My reference to inheritance was in answer to an interruption that not training but an experience of life was necessary for efficient management. Technicians, such as designers, constitute an important element in the industry, and their training and qualifications are matters of first importance. Again, in Lancashire we see a great deal that has been done by the Development Council there.
Hon. Gentlemen may well ask why these problems cannot be left to the existing clothing associations to solve. Frankly, the answer is this: In the first place, these associations have not provided these facilities, and we have not confidence—and I am sure the House will not have confidence—in these organisations being able, with the best will in the world, to deal effectively with all these problems which raise wide issues of social and economic policy, particularly in matters affecting both sides of the industry, such as training, seasonal employment, and so on.
As I have already said, in spite of the great number of employers' associations and their pretty fair coverage in terms of production, they represent in total only about one-quarter of the firms in the industry. Most people in the industry agree that the big problem in many of these aspects is the small firm who is left out of or has not come into existing trade associations. Since the first clothing working party report was published nearly three years ago, there has been no real evidence of any co-ordinated attempt on the part of the industry to face the problems which the working party then brought to light. Unlike the situation in other industries where the two sides are divided, in the case of clothing the industry has not made any proposal for an alternative body to a development council to implement the recommendations of the working parties.
In these circumstances the Government feel that it is essential to provide such an organisation, and that this organisation should be on a statutory basis, with the status, authority and finance necessary to enable it to deal effectively with the major problems of the clothing industry.

Major Gates: We have understood from the President's announcement that he was not prepared to receive alternative suggestions for a voluntary body to carry out all these functions. Did he in fact make such a statement?

Mr. Wilson: I did not make an announcement that I was not prepared to receive alternative suggestions for a voluntary body. Very late in the proceedings when we had had discussions on the question of the development council, it was suggested that perhaps the industry, left to itself, might work out a scheme for a voluntary body, and I indicated in reply that in my view a development council was desirable and that I was perfectly certain from the attitude on the trade union side that no voluntary body would receive the co-operation which would be required to make it work. I was hopeful then and I am still hopeful now that we shall get from the employers side the co-operation necessary to make this development council a success.
As the House knows, under the Act I am empowered to make recommendations to the House for the establishment of a development council, only if I am satisfied that it is desired by a substantial number of the persons engaged in the industry. I have in fact received the strongest representations that this is desirable by the organised workers in the industry. It is also desired by associations representing over 1,000 of the organised firms in the industry out of the 6,000 organised firms to which I have referred, as well as by a number of prominent individual manufacturers who have written to me.
Now I come to the form of the order. I do not think that I need to take too much of the time of the House in doing this since it largely follows the lines of previous orders, though I should be naturally glad to give any information or explanations if any points are raised by hon. Members. The order deals with the definition of the industry and of the membership of the council.
The council will consist of 18 members of whom 6 will be chosen as capable of representing the interests of employers, comprising three, two and one to represent respectively the heavy, light and rubber-proofed clothing sections of the industry; one as capable of representing


the interest of persons employed in the industry as managers or technicians; six as capable of representing the interests of other persons employed in the industry; four will be independent persons with no financial or industrial interest in the industry; and one will be chosen as having a special knowledge of the distribution of clothing. Managers and technicians although employed in the industry are given separate representation in this order because neither employers nor workers will admit them to their own ranks, each classing the managers and technicians with the other camp.
To deal with the sectional problems of the industry, the order provides that the council shall set up three committees to advise them in the exercise of their functions in relation to the heavy, light and proofed sections of the industry respectively. It will, of course, be open to the council to set up other committees to advise on particular aspects of their work.
Following the lines of previous orders the draft before the House goes on to provide for compulsory registration of persons carrying on business in the industry, and provides for the necessary finance for the work of the council. This will be done by a levy, imposed with the approval of the Board of Trade, but not exceeding a maximum of £300,000 in any period of three years or £150,000 in any single year. Such a levy would work out at no more than roughly 5s. per year per worker in the industry or about one-thirtieth of one per cent. of the turnover and clearly this will not increase the cost of clothing.

Sir William Darling: To be paid by a levy on employers and unions or employers only?

Mr. Wilson: This is not a tax on employers only. It is a levy on the total production of the industry, and it may come from the consumer if we assume that there is to be no increase in productivity and efficiency, following the establishment of the body, which would enable reductions to be passed on to the consumer. The council has power to call for appropriate statistical returns and other information with the usual provision to safeguard the confidential nature

of information relating to the activities of an individual firm.
Finally, after providing for penalties in accordance with the main Act—I hope these will not be needed—the order lays down, in the second schedule, the functions which the council may undertake. I recognise that this order is different from other orders which have appeared before the House, but I am asking for support for a measure which I am sure the House as a whole will consider to be in the best interests of the industry and the country. It is a measure which will help the industry, which did so much for the country during the war, to reach the highest state of efficiency and organisation so that it can play its full part in the national struggle for recovery.

8.21 p.m.

Commander Galbraith: The President of the Board of Trade, with a considerable degree of courtesy, has for a fairly long time endeavoured to defend what we on these benches consider to be quite indefensible. As this order is made under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, I think it is relevant to remind the House that we on this side gave an unopposed Third Reading to that Measure. We did that for the reason which was set forth quite clearly by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), in these words:
… We want it to have the largest measure of support and the best chance of success, as its objects are those with which we all agree."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1947; Vol. 438, c. 97.]
Since then, as the Minister has reminded us, three development councils have been set up and in each case support for them came from these benches. It is, therefore, not right to contend tonight that, in opposing this order, we are following the same precedent, or doing it for anything other than what we believe to be good and sufficient reasons. In Section 1 (1) of the Act, the purpose of the development council is stated thus:
To increase efficiency or productivity in industry, to improve or develop the services which it renders or could render to the community or to enable it to render such services more economically.
I think it is obvious that to accomplish these things it is necessary to obtain the co-operation of the whole industry—employers


and employed alike. We on these benches thought the Government clearly understood that; at any rate, that was certainly the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot when, speaking in the Debate on 3rd June, 1947, he said:
I think it is the general opinion on both sides that these development councils will not be successful, and will not attain the objects we ought to have in view unless they are set up with the goodwill of all concerned.
In expressing that opinion my right hon. Friend had good grounds if we consider what the Minister of Pensions, at that time the Paymaster-General, had to say:
The Government have every intention of proceeding by agreement rather than by compulsion and does not wish to impose a development council on an unwilling industry.
On the same occasion the then President of the Board of Trade, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said:
The success of the councils will, of course, depend very largely on the degree of co-operation given by both sides of the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1947; Vol. 438, c. 53–4 and 92.]
What is the right hon. Gentleman doing under this order? He is imposing, by compulsion, a development council on an unwilling industry—the very thing which his right hon. Friend said the Government did not wish to do and, incidentally, the very thing which the President of the Board of Trade himself said he would not do, at a meeting of employers and workers in the industry held on 13th January, 1948.

Mr. Wilson: What I said was that there was no question, nor could there be any question, of my establishing a development council unless I was satisfied that it was desired by a substantial number of persons in the industry. I did not say that if the industry was not unanimous I would not propose the establishment of a development council to the House—a very different thing.

Commander Galbraith: I have here the right hon. Gentleman's words, which were recorded at the time, and they do not quite correspond with what he has just said. However, the matter is not of any great moment, and we can leave it there.
I was saying that the success of the development council—and here I am

repeating the words of the Chancellor—very largely depends on the degree of co-operation from the industry. I suggest that we are right to carry the examination of this matter further than the right hon. Gentleman has carried it in order to see what degree of co-operation is likely to be forthcoming in this case. I make out the position to be very different from that which the right hon. Gentleman made it out to be. According to the Ministry of Labour Gazette of September, 1949, the number of insured persons in the clothing industry in July of this year is not between 400,000 and 500,000, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, but is 507,500.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. and gallant Gentleman will recall that I said there were between 400,000 and 500,000 employed in productive processes. There is a difference between the number employed in productive processes and the number of insured persons in employment.

Commander Galbraith: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many of the number I have given are not employed in productive processes? I stand by the figures I have given. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to dispute them, he had better bring forward evidence and lay it on the Table.

Mr. Wilson: It is quite possible, in fact, it is certain, that there are some insured clerical workers in the industry, which will explain the difference between the figure I gave to the House and the accurate figure given by the Ministry of Labour Gazette.

Commander Galbraith: I will accept the right hon. Gentleman's figure when he is good enough to give us details of it. I want him to be accurate; he ought to be accurate.

Mr. Orbach: The hon. and gallant Gentleman himself is far from accurate.

Commander Galbraith: When the Minister quotes a figure which is very divergent from the one I have given, he might be good enough to give us details. No doubt we shall be given the figure later, when I shall be willing to accept it. The latest available figure for membership of the tailoring and other clothing trade unions is 145,620, out of 507,500. From these figures it appears


to be probable that the trade union side of the industry, which the right hon. Gentleman consulted, represented less than one-third of the total number of insured persons employed. It is therefore probable that on the side of the employees the Minister can only claim at the very most that about one-third of those employed in the industry are in favour of this development council.
I should like now to deal with the employers' side. There are 16 organisations which between them, it is claimed, employ 80 per cent. of the total labour force in the industry. These 16 organisations are opposed to the establishment of a development council.

Mr. Attewell: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us how many employers there are in the 16 organisations?

Commander Galbraith: No, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that information. I am merely stating what I have discovered, to the best of my ability, to be the correct position—that these 16 organisations claim to employ 80 per cent. of the labour force, and I stand by that figure until I have it disproved to me. These organisations are opposed to the establishment of a development council. Of that fact the right hon. Gentleman has been aware for a very long time—I understand since he first announced his intention to set up a development council.
I should like to confirm what the right hon. Gentleman said about the course of the negotiations. I think it is something which should be put on record from both sides of the House. Following the meeting which the President of the Board of Trade had with the industry—with the employers and the workers—on 13th January, to which he has referred, and the issue of the memorandum by the Department as to their preliminary proposals, there was a meeting of the employers' organisations on 28th April, when it was agreed that no useful purpose would be served by setting up a development council and that accordingly it should be opposed. The Minister was informed of that decision, as he has told us. Following the further meeting with the right hon. Gentleman on 9th November and the issue of a further memorandum by his Department, the employers

met again on 7th January, 1949. They then reaffirmed their opposition to the scheme outlined in the memorandum as being impracticable for an industry so diverse in its make-up and composed of so many different sections. That meeting gave notice that the organisations there represented were not prepared to take part either in the formation of a development council or in its work if it were established.
Then there was the issue of the publication to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, entitled "Proposals for a Development Council for the Clothing Industry." That led the employers' organisations to meet again on 9th February when, having considered the proposals in that publication, they again reaffirmed their opposition to this project, and again the right hon. Gentleman was advised of their attitude. There were two further meetings after that date, one on 1st June of this year after the meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary, and the other on 14th July following the laying of the draft order on 5th July. At both these meetings resolutions reaffirming opposition to the establishment of a development council were passed unanimously, which decisions were again conveyed to the right hon. Gentleman.
During the proceedings in this House on 3rd June, 1947, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Sir A. Gridley) reminded the House that, when faced with opposition by a section of the employers in the cotton industry the then President of the Board of Trade, now the Chancellor of the Exchequer, personally visited Manchester, argued the matter with these employers, and persuaded them to take development steps: he won them over to his side. Now, with all deference, I do not think that the present President of the Board of Trade did sufficient in that direction. It may be he felt that the task was beyond his strength.
According to my information—and here again I differ from the right hon. Gentleman—there were only two, not three, employers' organisations who were in favour of these proposals. I was very glad when the right hon. Gentleman corrected himself in that regard when he told us that the bespoke tailors had withdrawn. Therefore, the number which I have given—namely, two organisations


in favour of the proposals—is, I think, correct, and agreed on all hands. These two organisations represent sub-contractors. They do not own the principal materials used. They are, in fact, merely employees of the manufacturers. The situation is really this, that about one-third of the employees may be in favour of this order, while the employers' organisations, representing 80 per cent. of the industry, oppose it and say that they will have nothing whatever to do with it.
In spite of that, the right hon. Gentleman is asking the House to force a development council on an unwilling industry. He has given his reasons. Let me recapitulate some of them. He said that it was necessary to increase production, that it was necessary there should be research, that some one should give guidance to the industry, that the exports of the industry were too small, that seasonal fluctuations had to be looked into, that there were standards of quality to be considered and that there was a costing system and other matters to be taken into account.
As I understand it, a development council has little or no powers or authority other than to require information and raise a levy. Apart from that, it can only make recommendations. Surely an unwilling industry will not accede very readily to recommendations made by a body which it does not require and does not desire. In any case, these development councils are still in their experimental stage; they still have to prove themselves. In these circumstances, it appears to be highly injudicious, if not stupid, to endeavour to force such a council on an industry that is unwilling to have it.
If the work and value of these councils had been proved, is it really possible that a single council could be effective in the case of this so-called clothing industry, which in fact is not one industry but many industries? That, it seems to me, is one of the employers' principal objections. They do not believe that one council can cover effectively what is not a single industry but a wide range of industries. What can be further apart, from the manufacturing or any other point of view, than corsets and cloth caps? Surely there is little or no connection between them, and that applies equally to many

other sections of this so-called industry. Over and above that—and this is a matter into which the right hon. Gentleman did not go—they have very few problems in common. The single organisation of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke is quite impossible for an industry of this nature.
Let me give the House an illustration of the Minister's seeming inability to appreciate that point. I should like to quote the case of the bespoke tailoring trade which, as he said, is of the greatest importance in regard to exports. It is on the bespoke tailoring trade that the maintenance of the quality of all tailoring goods really depends. Its importance far outweighs the fact that it is responsible for 20 per cent. of the production of garments from what is classified as the heavy clothing industry.
To include the bespoke tailoring trade with the manufacturing of clothes is really akin to classifying horse breeding with the manufacture of motor vehicles on the grounds that both are a means of transport. As I understand it, the bespoke tailoring trade appealed to the right hon. Gentleman to provide in this order for the appointment to the development council of a person capable of representing their interests. That request was refused, and it was refused on the grounds that provision could not be made for the representation of every section of the industry. That the Minister can use that argument shows that he has failed to grasp the fact that bespoke tailoring is not just a section of the industry, but is a complete industry on its own.
I have no doubt that during this Debate criticism will be levelled at the employers for having failed to put forward any suggestions for a voluntary body in place of a statutory development council. I do not consider that such criticism, if it is made, can be justified, for two reasons. The employers, as I have endeavoured to show, are convinced that such a body is quite unsuited to the many industries which come within the comprehensive term "the clothing industry." On the Third Reading of the Bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
The object is to get one responsible body of persons who can speak for all interests in the industry with a single voice."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1947; Vol. 438, c. 90.]


That body, in the diversity of this industry, the employers believe is quite incapable of attainment.
The President of the Board of Trade, according to my information, which again differs in a small degree from what he has told us tonight, throughout these negotiations plainly showed his unwillingness to accept a voluntary alternative. Again, according to my information, he made that abundantly clear at the meeting he had with the industry on 13th January, 1948. At the meeting on 26th October the Parliamentary Secretary admitted that in the circumstances which I have related a development council in this industry would probably fail and the trouble was that it would do a lot of damage in the process.
Apart, therefore, from the utility of imposing a development council on an unwilling industry, it appears to me to be little short of criminal in the nation's economic affairs to introduce an order which the Minister seemingly considered would do a lot of damage. If this nation is to be saved from the effects of an economic blizzard which will bring untold suffering to all of us, surely harmony, co-operation and unity are most essential and much to be desired. That the Government should choose this particular moment to take a great industry by the ears and produce dissension in its ranks, as well as risk a reduction in its efficiency and the volume of its production, is an action so frivolous and indeed so wicked that, other things apart, we on these benches are left with no other alternative than to go into the Lobby to vote against the Motion to approve this order.

Mr. Logan: What did the hon. and gallant Gentleman mean when he said that the bespoke trade was the principal end of the clothing trade? As a matter of fact, the bespoke trade is applicable only to the people of this country and is not for export at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is only a small item.

Commander Galbraith: I did not say it was the principal pant of the industry. I pointed out that it produced some 20 per cent. of the heavy clothing industry output, and that it was most important because it maintained the quality of the whole clothing manufacture.

Mr. Logan: Only five per cent.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: As is usual in these cases, I must disclose my interest. I have been engaged in the clothing trade for the past 30 years, and I think I can modestly claim to have gained a certain amount of knowledge of one branch of it.
When the right hon. Gentleman tried to make out his case for a development council for this industry, he did not complete the whole picture. I must remind him that when he met the representatives of the industry on 9th November last year, he was challenged whether he was conforming with the provisions of the Act. He said that he was satisfied that the establishment of a development council was desired by a substantial number of employers engaged in the industry. He went on further and said that he would also be satisfied even if no employers had been in favour of it. The fact that the trade unions concerned desired a development council was, in his opinion, by itself quite sufficient.
We have already heard in this Debate about the number of workers in the trade unions in this industry. I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the proportion is approximately 30 per cent. So far as I know, there has been no ballot of those workers. Whatever interpretation the right hon. Gentleman may put upon the trade unions' being in favour of a development council, that decision is not altogether in the spirit of the Act. One must realise that during the passage of the Act the Minister in charge of it said that the Government had every intention of proceeding by agreement rather than by compulsion, and did not wish to impose a development council upon an unwilling industry. We can therefore see how far the Minister has now departed from that assurance and how he now rides roughshod over any person or any objection opposed to him.
I have disclosed my interest in this matter and because I know something about the industry I am convinced that a development council cannot serve the purpose for which it is intended. In the clothing industry there are 12 distinct trades. I am not concerned with the number of trade organisations but only with the number of actual trades. I ought to give them to hon. Members so that they can appreciate how diverse this


industry is in its composition. There is the heavy clothing trade making men's and boys' suits and overcoats. There is the women's costume trade making women's costumes, coats and skirts. There is the raincoat trade, the shirt and collar trade, the tie trade, the hats and caps trade, the men's, women's and children's underwear trade, the trade in ladies' dresses and blouses made from woven fabric, the children's frocks and suits trade made from woven fabric, the corset trade, the athletic shirt and shorts trade and, finally, the overall trade.
Even with some of these individual trades the same conditions cannot apply all through. Take for instance, the clothing trade. How can we say that the problems of a multiple firm like Montague Burton's are the same as those of a bespoke tailor in the West End of London. I am quite sure that all hon. Members will agree that there can be no common problem for many of these trades. Take suits and overcoats on the one hand and ladies' corsets on the other. What common problem can there be between those two. Take the production of hats and caps on the one hand and ladies' underwear on the other. Where is the common problem?
Let us see how the development council proposes to work. The right hon. Gentleman has told us about the constitution. There are to be three employers from the heavy clothing trade, and so on. I will not go through it all. Apparently there is no one to represent the interests of the shirt and collar manufacturers, the corset trade, the overall trade or the tie trade. When the order comes into operation the development council will appoint three committees which are to advise the council on matters relating to their particular trades. One to advise on matters relating to the heavy clothing trade, the second the light clothing trade and the third the proofed clothing trade. There is no mention of how the council will be advised about hats and caps, corsets, shirts and collars and so on. Those trades are not represented on the council, and it looks as if they will be the orphans of the storm.

Mr. Wilson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent what I said. I made it clear that, in addition to the three committees referred

to in the order, the council is perfectly free to set up committees representative of any section.

Mr. Shephard: I agree. The right hon. Gentleman said that in his speech but there is nothing about it in the order.
I now turn to the second schedule, which defines the functions of the council. The first is the promotion of scientific research. Any man with practical experience would agree that it is quite impossible to apply scientific research to the industry as a whole. We should need to break down the research into 12 compartments. There would have to be 12 researches, and not one, to cover the industry.
The second function is:
Promoting inquiry as to materials and equipment and as to methods of production, management and labour utlisation"—
and so on. Here again, the methods of production are entirely different in each branch of the industry, the materials used are quite different and in many cases the equipment is different. Here, again, we come up against the same problem of how we are to apply this function to the industry without having 12 different approaches.
The third function is:
Promoting research into matters affecting industrial psychology.
I suppose we could apply that to the whole industry, but we think that it would be far better done by the Ministry of Labour. The fourth function is:
Promoting measures for the improvement of design, including promoting the establishment and operation of design centres.
The same thing applies here. We should need 12 centres. We should require 12 different approaches to the problem. We cannot mix corsets and raincoats with a design centre. It is not only that. A point which has been missed is that the clothing industry is spread all over the country. It is not restricted to Lancashire, Leicester, Nottingham or London. It is in every town in the country. Therefore, I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman had in view when he thought of setting up design centres.
I shall not bore the House by going through all the functions in the second schedule, but I say emphatically that in none of the functions are the problems common to the industry as a whole. The


only problem I can see which is common to the whole industry is the shortage of labour, and that is not included in the functions. My candid opinion is that a lot of these functions are complete eyewash and that it would be quite impossible for a development council to carry them out in the clothing trade.
I beg the right hon. Gentleman to think again. I want him to withdraw the order. Whatever may be the merits of development councils in other industries, in this case such a council can serve no useful purpose. It will impose an additional cost on the industry. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was only 5s. per employee, but we are all asked just now to reduce costs, not to increase them, and whether it is 5s., 10s. or 1s., it adds to the cost. It will divert the activities of busy men from their own duties and it will add a few more to that ever growing number of civil servants. I do not know what the chairman of this development council will be paid and I think the House ought to know, although it rests entirely with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Cobb: On the question of research, has not the House heard that research, if properly applied, tends to reduce costs? It has been demonstrated in other industries. Would he say how many scientists the clothing industry employs?

Mr. Shephard: I do not know how many scientists the clothing industry employs. I have pointed out that the clothing industry is split into 12 different units. I know only about my own unit and there we have no scientists, but I see nothing to suggest that the development council will employ scientists for this, that, and the other section of the industry.

Mr. Cobb: It is obvious.

Mr. Shephard: I am certain that it will not further the efficiency of this industry. The right hon. Gentleman is not a practical man, he is a man of theory, and he is always telling industry what to do. He is inclined, if I may use the phrase, to try to teach his grandmother to suck eggs. I urge him to accept the advice of the practical men in this industry and scrap the order. I know that with his majority he can get this order through. The employers

have said they will not co-operate but I dare say there will be a few Quislings prepared to do the dirty work. I am certain of that, but whoever he finds—⁁

Mr. Attewell: If the hon. Gentleman is alleging Quislings, is he aware that the leader of his side tonight has made it quite clear that on the Third Reading the party opposite supported the Measure, so that the whole of the Opposition are Quislings.

Mr. Shephard: We supported this Measure when it came before Parliament and we accepted the assurance given then that a development council would not be forced on an unwilling industry. That is the point at issue. We have co-operated with the Government on all development council orders that have been brought here where the two sides of industry are in agreement.

Mr. Attewell: Let us be quite clear about this. The hon. Member will probably remember that I directed certain specific questions to the leader of my own Front Bench who made it quite clear that so long as the majority of the industry—not the manufacturers or the employees—decided on it, he would introduce the order.

Mr. Shephard: I thought the hon. Gentleman had been listening to me. I have been making out a case that the majority of the industry are not in favour of a development council. Some 30 per cent. are in the trade union. I am sure that the arithmetic of the hon. Gentleman is good enough for him to realise that it leaves 70 per cent. who are not in a union. If 70 per cent. are opposed to it, as they may well be—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why will they be?"] No one has been balloted on this question, not even those who are in a trade union. All the right hon. Gentleman has done has been to get his trade union officials round him and say, "Now look, boys, we want a development council in this industry and you will agree with it, won't you?"

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Member has made a perfectly unwarranted allegation on the way in which I have conducted these negotiations. May I inform him that I have never met the trade union side of this industry except in the presence of the employers.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Shephard: Certainly I will withdraw if I have made an unwarranted accusation against the hon. Gentleman. I was picturing to myself what happens in these cases. If it is a fact that the right hon. Gentleman never met the trade unions except with the employers, then I accept it and I withdraw, but it does not make the position any better. Those employed in this industry have not been consulted, and for the right hon. Gentleman to try to make out a case on the ground that the trade unions have agreed to it, is sheer bunkum to my mind, and not only that, it is making a farce of the Act.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Parkin: I have heard some remarkable statistics in my time in the course of political controversy, but I have never heard anything quite like the argument put across tonight by those hon. Gentlemen opposite who try to calculate the force of the employers who are supposed to be in opposition to the order according to the number of workers they employ. The strength of 80 per cent. is based, apparently, on the number of workers in particular manufacturing units. Since we are told that the workers are not 100 per cent. organised, I expect we shall find when we examine details that it is in the larger units that the higher proportion of trade union workers are to be found. This curious sort of election in two stages, or the amassing of a kind of feudal vote with which to become armed to face my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, is not really very convincing.
I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard), with his lifelong experience and knowledge of the industry, the benefit of which he might have given us in greater detail, trying to put across the notion that there was no common ground in the different sections of the industry for which a development council could be useful. The hon. Member has, perhaps, assumed that everybody will have forgotten all about the working party reports. It is interesting to note that in the Heavy Clothing Industry Working Party's Report the first recommendation is that:
Trade organisations in the industry with overlapping, functions and membership should consider amalgamation.

In the Light Clothing Industry Working Party's Report, the first recommendation is that:
We are of the opinion that it is in the interests of the Light Clothing Industry that a suitable organisation should be established to deal with those general problems affecting the industry which do not come within the scope of the activities of trade associations and to provide for the industry services of a kind which cannot be undertaken by the existing organisations.
The recommendations proceed to cover point after point, some of which the hon. Member has slightly ridiculed and others of which he has completely ignored. Problems such as the seasonal variation of trade are, surely, common to many sections of the industry.

Mr. S. Shephard: I could have said quite a lot more. The hon. Member is talking about seasonal fluctuations in trade. It is quite impossible for a development council, however constituted, to regulate trade. That depends on supply and demand, and no development council will ever overcome that difficulty.

Mr. Parkin: Surely it depends on the supply and demand of particular items. In other industries means have been found to stabilise employment throughout the year. This is where we really want to get these dozen separate people, who do not know about each other's factory problems, together round a table to try to find the remedy.

Mr. W. Shepherd: As apparently the hon. Member has read the reports, he must have some idea of what the working parties had in mind to iron out the problem of variation of demand which results in seasonal employment. Perhaps the hon. Member would be good enough to tell the House how that is to be done.

Mr. Parkin: This is quite the wrong place for people to make precise suggestions. That, after all, is what a development council is for—

Mr. W. Shepherd: In principle.

Mr. Parkin: In principle, yes—and such things as standardisation, where it can be achieved; the concentrating during a part of the season on work for the home market and for the rest of the season building up stocks for export, concentrating on certain types of goods which it is known will be in demand later in the year.

Mr. Osborne: Does not the hon. Member realise that those of us in the trade have been doing that for years and that the only reason we have avoided the Bankruptcy Court is that we have been doing those things as a matter of course? We do not want a development council to tell us how to do it.

Mr. Parkin: Of course, the hon. Member is successful, although he has already warned us that he expects his grandchildren will go back to clogs, and I was sorry to hear that. I hoped that, with the training facilities which would be provided by the development council and the general assistance offered by the welfare State, the descendants of the hon. Member might prove to have some ability to follow in the steps laid down for them.
The menace to the industry, as he knows perfectly well, and the menace to himself, is not that people like himself, and the most successful, cannot make their plans, but that so many people come in and out, and because of the immense variety in the types of factory. In this country we have the most modern and beautifully set-out factory contrasted with some old house in which the rooms have been knocked into one and which just manages to scrape under the regulations of the factory inspector. The hon. Member knows that that is the real danger to the workers' side of the industry and in regard to problems of recruitment and keeping employment stable throughout the year. However, I do not want to get involved in an argument on that point, and I see now that the ranks of the Opposition are considerably reinforced, adding to the experience of life recommended by the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke).
I wish to ask my right hon. Friend about one point which I did think provided common ground between different sections of the industry. I am sorry to see that in the draft under the Second Schedule he has not taken full advantage of the provisions of the Act. I searched the Second Schedule in vain to find any of the provisions which are made possible by paragraph 14 of the First Schedule to the Act giving a development council power to promote arrangements for co-operative organisations to provide materials and equipment.
I wish to ask one or two questions about the subject of machinery. Each of the reports refers to machinery and there is no doubt that the question of getting the most up-to-date equipment in the smaller, less well financed units of industry, where perhaps one or two adventurous spirits are striking out for themselves or struggling to keep a family business going, is most important, as they have not the necessary finance to expand or to re-equip. We do not want those people to waste the materials or labour which come under their control. I suppose there is no argument between us that that is one of the biggest problems in British industry, and I had hoped to see the Government giving a lead in encouraging the financing of new machinery, or perhaps making it available for renting, or through co-operative organisations.
I should like to see the Government itself lending out machinery on the same lines as those followed in the boot and shoe industry for many years, so that the most up-to-date can be available to those best able to use it. That is one of the most important points which keeps recurring and which I am sure is common ground in many branches of the industry. I hope hon. Members opposite are not going to attack on principle, throughout the night, the inefficiency and ignorance of Members of the Government who interest themselves in matters connected with trade and industry. If the Opposition do so, I am afraid the Debate is liable to degenerate into an exchange of observations about the less attractive aspects of this industry. I do not think we want to stress those tonight. Hon. Members opposite with knowledge of the industry know that there are many things in it about which they are not very proud, but also there are many things in it about which we have every right to be proud.
I regretted seeing somebody on the other side of the House laughing when the subject of exports was mentioned, but this industry has done a great deal towards the export trade in the recent past. We have other examples, too. The motorcar industry, for instance, laughed its head off when it was first suggested that it could expand in overseas markets, but it has found that it can do so. I have no doubt that this industry can also do so. We do not want to spend time picking out the worst in the industry. This


is an opportunity to insist upon the foundations for co-operation, and if we can get this order with the minimum of bitterness I am certain that the example will bring in the co-operation. The whole of the industry can set an example to other industries which are a little reluctant in this matter.

9.11 p.m.

Colonel J. R. H. Hutchison: I have listened with care to the speeches of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Parkin) and the Minister in order to try to pick out of what they said any justification for going back on the assurances which were given by a succession of Ministers on the Second Reading of the Bill. One of the examples has been quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), but I would like to read two other excerpts from what eminent members of the Government said at that time. The present Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
… to do things by compulsion is far less healthy and less effective than to do them by agreement. Even if agreement takes rather longer—as, of course, it must—it is, in the long run, more effective.
It was followed by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade who said, about compulsion:
It will not be lightly applied, because it would be an extremely foolish thing from the Government point of view.… Suppose the employers said that they would not co-operate. You would find it very difficult to get any kind of council to work, and we realise that as much as anyone else."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1947; Vol. 433, cc. 552–3, 644.]
Added to what was quoted by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok, we have an imposing array of Ministers singing the same song in unison. Indeed, it would need almost a photo-finish to find out which of the Ministers had arrived first to assure the industry that they were not going to have the development council imposed.
Following upon the working party reports of which the right hon. Gentleman has told us, there were a series of meetings about which he has been good enough to furnish us with a considerable amount of detail. But he never at any point, as I understood him, invited some form of voluntary organisation to be set up by the employers, or if he

did the employers were completely unaware that any such possibility lay before them. There is a very good maxim in the Army, and I believe in other occupations, too, that if somebody does not understand what you have been trying to tell him it is not his fault, but yours.
The employers were left under the very clear-cut impression that no form of voluntary body would be considered at all. I consider this is a complete change of front, a complete betrayal of all the implied and expressed pledges that this sort of action would not be taken. Here we have a Minister refusing to discuss or examine or compromise along the lines extolled by his colleagues.
Here we have a Minister acting in direct contravention of what has already been promised. Here we have him doing that foolish thing which was stigmatised by one of his colleagues. We are used to the Government doing foolish things, but they generally try to find a better reason for justifying them than the lame excuses which the right hon. Gentleman has offered to the House tonight. There has been no discussion, no examination, to see whether it was not indeed possible to get this agreement and, consequently, the efficiency which would come from agreement with the employers and the employers' organisations. It is, indeed, an example of the iron hand without even the courtesy of a velvet glove. It is compulsion for compulsion's sake.
Is it then surprising that the trade are puzzled, angry and unco-operative? Surely any reasonable man, relying upon these pledges which were extracted in this honourable House, would be annoyed, puzzled, angry and unco-operative when he saw such an unreasonable frame of mind. I shall not go over the long list which my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) has already given to show what a variety of manufacturers go to make up this industry, but I shall quote the right hon. Gentleman's own words, used at the beginning of his speech this evening, in which he said it was "extremely difficult to bring all these factors together." If it is difficult for him to bring them together in consultation with the employers' associations, how much more difficult will it be for a development council, imposed upon an


industry without the co-operation of the employers, to get anything done at all?
This criticism of the Minister's highhanded action is supported not only by the trade but by such important bodies as the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries and the National Union of Manufacturers, all of whom appealed to the right hon. Gentleman not to disrupt the industry until every possibility of co-operation has been examined and had to be abandoned. Let it be noted that the Act does not oblige the Minister to set up a development council and, in setting it up, he is only setting up friction. Compulsion can never achieve one half of what can be achieved by willing co-operation. Only the other day in this House we had the Chancellor of the Exchequer appealing to the country and to industry to show their team-spirit, which alone would get us through, and yet here we have the right hon. Gentleman destroying that team-spirit by imposing something to which the employers have never had a chance of offering counter-suggestions.
I want for a moment to deal with the arithmetic of the "substantial numbers" which the right hon. Gentleman said were in support of the proposals. It has been admitted that practically a unanimity among employers—with the exception of two very minor associations—are opposed to the development council, at any rate at this stage. Even admitting that the whole of the members of the trade unions may be in favour of the development council and that the remainder of the workers affected have shown no decided tendency one way or another, and if we assume that employers and workers have an equal interest in the industry—and after all, that is team spirit and partnership—then we find that one-sixth of those concerned in the industry support a development council.

Mr. Orbach: Would not the hon. and gallant Member agree that the two insignificant organisations, as he suggested they were, are composed completely of manufacturers—people who employ workers. Every individual who is a member of these two organisations is a manufacturer employing work-people. That is not true of the members of the 18 organisations which he says do not support the proposals.

Colonel Hutchison: The associations which the right hon. Gentleman himself quoted are, in fact, associations of subcontractors, but, even granting the hon. Member's statement, we are still left with the fact that 80 per cent. of those employed are employed by members of the associations which are opposed to the development council.

Mr. Orbach: Leaving the hon. and gallant Member's arithmetic for a moment, I should like to ask him whether, in the membership of the 18 organisations, there is not a great deal of overlapping? May not a man be a member of the shirt makers' association and, at the same time, a member of the heavy clothing association?

Colonel Hutchison: I do not want to pursue this point much further, but does that really matter when the total number of employees employed by the associations together equal 80 per cent. of the total employed in the industry? We have the 80 per cent. whether they overlap or not. We are not counting the same man twice. Anyhow, by no process of arithmetic can it be claimed, as I see it, that a substantial number of those in the industry are in favour of it. To say that a sixth or anything like a sixth is a substantial number is straining words as far as the Government have strained British economy.
This development council will not cost nothing. As has been pointed out, and as, indeed, is said in the order, something like £300,000 is to be spent upon the development council over three years, I understand. If the development council was going to do something which would be of real value to the trade we on this side of the House, as we showed on Second Reading of the Bill, would be in favour of it. We are all in favour of trade doing all it can to modernise itself, and to expand, and to help in the country's production and exports.
But what, in fact, is this development council going to do? The right hon. Gentleman said that the existing organisations were not competent to deal with all the requirements which the situation now demanded. Is it, then, intended that the development council shall set up something to take the place of such things as the D.S.I.R., the Factory Acts, B.E.T.R.O., the Incorporated Sales


Managers Association, and organisations concerned with training? What is this development council going to produce? If it is not going to set up new organisations, all it is going to do is to co-ordinate and link together organisations which already exist. Surely, that can be done by some voluntary body equally well and more cheaply.
The employers' associations, as I say, object to this measure, and they object particularly in the circumstances which have arisen to the representatives being Ministerial nominations. The Minister can only draw on a limited number of people to be appointed and who are supposed to understand all the facets of this industry. If there is not co-operation amongst the individuals from whom the right hon. Gentleman can get those to serve, the development council will fail, and must fail, to represent the views of the industry.
When the Measure under which this development council can be set up was before the House on Second Reading, it was stigmatised as a particularly vicious form of delegated legislation, and that has now been shown to be perfectly true. It is said that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said "No" three times it equals "Yes." We are now starting to learn the true form.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Attewell: In referring to the development council, hon. Members have spent far too much time in making it appear that the Minister who was in charge of the original Measure has broken Ministerial promises. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I suggest that if Members of the Opposition had good memories and remembered the discussions which took place on the original Measure they would realise that it is part of the Act that if there is not unanimity the Minister still has power to act. It must be agreed that that is in the Act.
I well remember specifically directing questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this particular point, and asking whether there must be unanimity on both sides; and I remember inquiring of the Minister whether, if the employees only desired it, that would amount to a substantial number of people, and whether it would mean, therefore, that the

Act could operate. We had an answer that "substantial numbers" meant substantial numbers of those engaged in the industry. That is quite clear. Hon. Members will remember my directing attention to that, because there was an idea that there need not necessarily be unanimity, and the wording was changed and revised, to appear as it does now, so as to make it quite clear that there need not be unanimity. It was to that that I directed my remarks. When the Minister said that compulsion must not lightly be applied, that meant that if it were necessary he would apply compulsion. There can be no other interpretation of that statement.

Mr. S. Shephard: If the hon. Gentleman will turn to Section 1 (4), he will find that it states:
A development council order shall not be made unless the Board or Minister concerned is satisfied that the establishment of a development council for the industry is desired by a substantial number of the persons engaged in the industry.
That has been the whole of the argument between the Government and ourselves. We maintain that one-sixth is not a substantial number.

Mr. Attewell: I asked what was a substantial number when we were discussing this matter before. A number of operatives is engaged. Each employer counts as an individual and, as far as being engaged in the industry is concerned, each employer can only equal one employee. If there are 16 organisations in the industry and, let us say, 100 employers in each organisation, it must mean that when the operatives give their vote they must outnumber the employers, and therefore the interpretation of "substantial number" is certainly carried out, because there are more employees in the industry than employers.

Mr. Odey: That is a sound basis for co-operation in industry.

Mr. Attewell: I am quite satisfied, as a trade union officer, that each one of my members is equal to each one of the employers.

Mr. W. Shepherd: What about those who are not trade union members?

Mr. Attewell: If they are not members of a trade union, it does not automatically


mean that they can be ranked alongside the employers for the purposes of this Act.

Mr. Odey: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to apply the same principle to the trade union leaders and the members of their unions?

Mr. Attewell: I am not talking about trade union leaders. They represent given numbers in the same way as the manufacturers' associations, when they are gathered round a table, represent their industry. When the employers of the industry met the Minister, they did not all go, but sent their representatives, in the same way as the trade union officers there were representing their members. Therefore, I fail to see how the Opposition can claim to be in favour of development councils—and they did not oppose them on the Third Reading of the Measure—and object when the Minister comes to apply a development council to an industry which is badly in need of that co-ordination.

Mr. S. Shephard: Nonsense.

Mr. Attewell: The hon. Gentleman says "nonsense," but I am telling him why I feel this industry is badly in need of a development council. If this industry is not in need of a development council, I wonder whether hon. Members opposite, who agreed with the Act, will tell me which industry is in need of a development council.

Mr. S. Shephard: The trade unions.

Mr. Attewell: I shall not bother to say "Nonsense" to that, because it is self-evident.
Development councils were introduced at a time when the whole House felt that there was a need for them to enable this country to get on its feet by assisting industry to reach peak production. The fact that the Opposition did not oppose the Third Reading of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act is some indication of that accord. This industry, with its overlapping sections, knows full well that in order to achieve co-ordination there must be a body which can speak for the whole industry, and can give advice on all those things which make for efficiency in industry. It is no use arguing that this industry is sub-divided. It is not the only industry which

is sub-divided: the boot and shoe industry and the building industry are both sub-divided. It would be foolish to say that because in the building of the new Chamber there are masons, carpenters and bricklayers there could not be a co-ordinating body. Can it be argued that there could not be co-ordination in the boot and shoe industry because there are different manufacturers for boots, heavy shoes, light shoes, ballet shoes, and slippers.

Mr. S. Shephard: They are still shoes, though, and there is not the same difference between them as between a corset and an overcoat.

Mr. Attewell: Well, I should have said they were both clothing. I cannot understand why, because sub-contractors take over parts of the work, they ought not to be classed as members of the clothing industry. The sub-contractor merely takes over a division of the labour; he does a certain part of the work, in many cases because those who take on the whole job cannot perform that part of the work as efficiently as the sub-contractor who, basing his organisation on a specialised part of the industry, can perform that part of the job more economically and much more cheaply than the main contractor. It is well known that in London many industries are sub-divided for that reason.

Colonel Hutchison: On that analogy, would the hon. Gentleman say that firms sub-contracting to supply, say, capstans to ships were also shipbuilders?

Mr. Attewell: I notice that there are not the normal leaders of the Opposition opposing this order, and it rather looks as though on this issue there are certain rebels going against the party line.
I should like to direct attention to the Second Schedule, paragraph 5 of which concerns promotion of the production of products of standard qualities. Surely a development council could do that very efficiently, and by giving a decision, after considering all aspects, could get agreement in the industry, thus enabling it to perform its functions efficiently. I do not want to go through them all. I do not think there is any case for saying that the functions described in the Second Schedule cannot be performed by this council. I very much doubt whether the


organisation has not got certain subcommittees which have dealt with some of these points even before this council has been formed.
The objection is, of course, to someone outside the industry, someone in the shape of the Government, coming into their affairs. That is the hostility on the part of all employers in these industries. It is the same in the case of my own industry, the boot and shoe industry. Let us see why it is absolutely essential that there should be independent people on this council selected for their knowledge and capability of determining what is best in the interests of the nation. If we did not have these co-opted members we should have the industry "ganging up" against the community. Fancy the trade union side and the employers' side sitting round a table and having the powers suggested here. It is obvious what would happen. The only safeguard is to have people who are not connected financially in any way with the industry to ensure that the public are protected.

9.38 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I trust that the right hon. Gentleman felt his head burning with the coals of fire heaped on it when my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) said that after 30 years' experience in the trade he had some slight knowledge of part of it. I am very disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman. Sometimes he proves himself to be a practical man of affairs. Just lately he has been telling us that he proposes to liberalise British trade with Europe and encourage the importation of all sorts of products and commodities from Europe in competition with our own trades. At other times, notably tonight, he exhibits a narrow academic line of thought, which only puts into my mind the suggestion that the sooner he returns to Oxford the better, to resume, not the teaching for which he is fairly famed, but learning ab initio. He showed that he had a lot to learn about trade and industry from the practical point of view.

Mr. Cobb: When is the noble Lord going to start?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: He has a bit of Jekyll and a bit of Hyde, but tonight

he has been in the black mood of Hyde, and we all regret it.
I should like to know how the right hon. Gentleman can reconcile his attitude on concentration of industry with that liberality of industry and commerce when it comes to overseas trade. I do not think it is necessary to deal with what is contained in this document I dislike it so much that I would not have gone to the trouble of turning the pages to deal with the individual points detailed in print were it not for the fact that my notes are written on them; otherwise I would tear it up right away.
There seem to be four stages in the Socialist experiment. The first is trade organisation, then the working party, followed by the development council and finally, public control in the national interest. Something has been said about trade organisations. I do not know whether I go all the way with my hon. Friends in that matter. I have felt for some time now that there were signs of danger even in the voluntary formation of trade organisations in industry. In electricity supplies, telephone cables and so on, the indications are that too much of a monopoly is being created by voluntary effort.
This second stage of imposing a working party and following it up with a development council is no more than an expansion of the trade organisation idea. It is, in fact, an increasing degree of concentration in industry on both sides with Government approval and chaperonage, if I can use that word, and against the consumers' rights and interests. Now we are going to have established for the clothing industry this development council, and no doubt when five years have gone by, and when the fowl has been properly dressed and trussed and all differences in the industry smoothed over with a great deal of utility types of garments fostered and produced by the Government, the Lord President will come down to the House and say that the industry is ripe for nationalisation.
These stages in the process remind me of the four courts which tried the unfortunate patron saint of France, Joan of Arc. First of all there was the soldiers' court, which tried her for military indiscretions and offences. Then there was the


priests' court, which tried her for having destroyed the faith of the simple peasants in the countryside. Then there was the bishops' court, which proceeded against her on the grounds that she was a relapsed heretic and accused her of doctrinal inconsistencies. Finally, there was the Holy Inquisition itself, which tortured her soul and led her to the funeral pyre. That is exactly the plight in which some of us on this side of the House see the fallen figure of British competitive industry at the present time. It is a gradual process of gathering the forces of production together, bringing both sides of industry together, giving Government approval to an elaborate scheme of control, and, finally, it is taken over.
We have seen this process in other countries. The first thing that Dr. Schacht did when he was given charge of the German finances was to set about the process of controlling and regimenting private industry precisely on the lines of these development councils. It is no good the Minister talking about both sides of the industry having agreed to this process, or arguing that hundreds of letters of approval have been received from branches of the industry and from private persons. Of course, those on the production side are delighted with the idea. It is feather bedding the whole concern for them. They will get guaranteed prices, fixed margins and whatnot, but at every stage the quality of the goods produced will decline and the price will rise.
The Minister cannot cite one single example of any firm or industry brought into a development council in the last five years or as long as the process has been at work, in which quality has improved and prices have fallen. The consumer is being penalised by this gradual process of the concentration of power in the hands of the Government embracing both sides of productive industry. The Minister talks of the elimination of shoddy production, and says that products will reach the highest state of efficiency. What possible guarantees are there of that taking place?
Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite amaze me. None of them sells anything at all. It is one of the weaknesses of the Socialist Party that there is not one commercial salesman on the Benches opposite. [Interruption.] If there is, he is not very vocal. We never hear his

views in this Chamber. The other point is that they have a blind faith in organisation and in close working under the aegis of Government. They have faith in that as a means of improving productivity, price and quality. Of course, it does nothing of the kind.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are up against human nature every time. If we put people into very close relationship and give them power, first of all through a development council and finally through Government guarantees of all sorts and kinds, the first thing they do is to slack, and the second thing is to produce cheaper quality goods. I believe that by far the greatest danger that civilisation and the consumer interests in this country face today is a new alliance against them by Government and by both sides of industry.
What Parliament ought to be doing at the present time is to go completely on the other tack and to enforce competition. We ought to be applying the anti-monopoly law to trade associations and to development councils so as to break them up and put them into competition as the only means of ensuring a fair chance to the consumer in quality and price. Parliament is taking the wrong function tonight and is not doing what it ought to be doing, which is to defend the consumer as the representative of the consumer. Instead, it is taking the line of Government against people. For that reason I deplore the paper that has been placed before us tonight.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. Austin: Before I address myself to the main point which has prompted my intervention, I want to deal with two points made by the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). He referred to the trial of Joan of Arc and to the fact that four courts sat in judgment upon her before she was ultimately executed. Had anybody suggested a fifth court, a court of peers, of which the noble Lord was a member, Joan of Arc would probably not have got a hearing at all.
An element of condescension emanates from the noble Lord when he addresses the House, whether he is speaking to my right hon. Friend, or to any right hon. Member on this side, or to back benchers. He asked my right hon.


Friend to go back to Oxford and undertake training ab initio, in strong contrast to the erudition from which we benefit whenever the noble Lord addresses us. I ask hon. Members to contrast the wisdom and practical knowledge which my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) brings from industry and the amount of knowledge which is contained in his little finger, with the tremendous erudition in the noble Lord's noble cranium.
We have heard enunciated from the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard) a most dangerous principle and doctrine which has been advocated by hon. Members opposite from time to time since 1945. The hon. Member referred to that element in the clothing industry which was prepared to co-operate with the Government in the setting up of a development council as "Quislings." When the Opposition embark upon that line, the development is of a pernicious character and hon. Members opposite are on very dangerous ground. I was at the Tory Party Conference in 1947 when the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) moved a resolution in which he, too, deprecated that certain business men were prepared to take service in nationalised industries. He said, "We shall know how to deal with them when we get back into power," and referred to them in a term something like "traitors." We have had the same sort of comment made about those public-spirited people in the steel industry who are prepared to divest themselves of politics from time to time and take service in the industry for the benefit of their country.
Accordingly, if there are responsible elements among the Opposition—sometimes I doubt it—surely it is up to them in the interests of democracy to dissociate themselves from this process of intimidation of public-spirited business men who are prepared to serve their country, sometimes in uniform and sometimes in industry. I ask the next speaker from the Opposition to refute what was said by the hon. Member for Newark.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Osborne: First of all, I gladly take up the point which has just been made by the hon. Member for

Stretford (Mr. Austin). I have seen letters written by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his own fair hand to business men friends of mine who have served for many years both the Coalition Government and the present Government in the very highest capacities in industry and have served the nation loyally and extremely well. I am proud to say that those business men friends of mine have received from the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressions of the warmest thanks for the patriotic work they have done. It does not need proving from this side of the House that we are as patriotic as hon. Members opposite claim to be. Where a law has been in force, we have loyally carried it out and done our best, and I am sure the President of the Board of Trade will bear me out in that.
I rather regretted one point made by the President of the Board of Trade. Twice he referred to shoddy production from this industry. I believe he will live to regret that. We are trying to export our manufactures abroad. Those manufactures will earn dollars wherewith we shall buy our foodstuffs and the raw materials to keep our people employed, and for the President of the Board of Trade twice tonight to proclaim to the world that what we are producing is shoddy is the greatest disservice he could possibly do the nation. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Look up HANSARD tomorrow—

Mr. Wilson: I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent what I said. I was not suggesting that what is being exported is shoddy. I paid a great tribute to our exports, but everyone knows that, particularly before the war, particularly before the utility scheme, and to some extent today, some trashy, shoddy stuff was and is being produced by the industry and dumped on the home market, to the detriment of the best interests of the consumer.

Mr. Osborne: That is a more reasonable statement than the President made originally. I was drawing this to the attention of the House and the President lest he make the same mistake and inadvertently and unwittingly do the country harm by saying that industry is producing shoddy goods. We are not. We are producing first-class goods in this country. The tragedy so often is, as the President


well knows, that owing to the necessities of the export trade the best quality goods have to go abroad and the cheaper and poorer goods are kept at home for our own people. I beg of him in future not to refer to the shoddy goods we are making. On the whole, we are making very good goods.
Before I go further, I ought to declare my interests. I am a director of one or two companies making textiles which will be affected by this order. There are four practical objections to the order. The first is that it is being made at an inappropriate time. The Government are at present quite rightly asking all sides of industry to make a great effort to produce more goods and to produce better quality goods and cheaper goods in order to fill the dollar gap. If that great requirement is to be fulfilled, both sides of industry must work together harmoniously. Now it is quite unreasonable to expect the employers to play their part in the export drive as well as they might do, if they feel that they are having put upon them through this order something to which they object violently.
May I put it to hon. Members opposite in this way? Supposing that an order of this nature were being brought forward by a Tory Government and 80 per cent. of the trade unionists objected to it, what would their reaction be? It would not be one of willing co-operation, it would be one of, "Well, what is done will be done grudgingly and not at all well." I beg the President of the Board of Trade to think of the overall problem of increasing our production today in order to meet the much more important requirement of filling the dollar gap.
My second objection is this. The real purpose of the development council is given in paragraph 1 (2) which says:
… to increase as much as possible efficiency and productivity in the industry.
That is quite all right as far as it goes, if it is possible. What method do the Government propose to employ to achieve that? It is proposed to set up a series of committees. My hon. Friend said there were only three committees, but the President at once jumped up and said, "Oh, but you can have lots of other committees if you want them." The tragedy in England today is that far too many businessmen are spending far too much time in committees and not enough time

in their own works. We are suffering from a modern disease that I call "committeeitis" and we are developing a type of businessman—I hate to have to admit it—who loves to go to a committee and talk about trade in general instead of staying at home looking at his own problems. Efficiency and productivity will be increased only if men stay in their own factories and I put it to the President that he will not get that increased productivity which he thinks he will get by setting up more committees.
My third objection is that in paragraph 6 (4) there is again talk of levies and £300,000 is to be raised. The President has said that it represents only a tiny fraction of the income of the industry. That is true, but at the present time the Government are insisting on rigid economy. Much as they hate it, it is economy, economy, economy everywhere. Yet here in an industry which could well do without this for the time being we are being urged to spend more money and to collect more money. I suggest that this £300,000 for three years will not be nearly enough. I put this to the President as well, that the £300,000 will be spent on non-productive labour and the productive industries are crying out because there is a shortage of labour. By setting up these various committees we shall drain the labour market still further
My last objection is this: Paragraph 9 (1) says that there will be a penalty of £50 and sub-paragraph (3) says that there will be a maximum penalty of two years or a tine of £100. There are quite sufficient penalties in this country already without concocting any more, and it is a pity to create further crimes that the industrialist may commit unwittingly. For those four reasons, I suggest that if the President of the Board of Trade wants to get the maximum production which the country needs, he would be wise even now to withdraw the order for 12 months and then bring it forward again, because the present is a most inappropriate moment.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Cobb: I want briefly to direct the attention of the House to two points which have arisen tonight. I work in an industry which is also subject to seasonal fluctuations, but, unlike the industry we are discussing, it has a scientific background. The arguments I have heard tonight from the other side of


the House remind me of a visit I paid a short while ago to a Yorkshire textile factory, where I observed that all the machinery bore the date stamp of 1864 and that the electrical generating plant was a Siemens Schuckert job of 1871, about the oldest piece of work I have seen outside the Science Museum.
When I had observed that I thought a few jobs here and there could be mechanised, the ancient gentleman in charge of the place became "fed up" and said to me, "Young man, this process has been going on for 6,000 years and we have now reached ultimate wisdom." That was the attitude of that manufacturer. It is summed up by the attitude of hon. Gentlemen who have spoken tonight from the benches opposite. It is not surprising that that attitude is supported by the noble Lord the Member for Southern Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) with the feudal atmosphere which we always associate with him.
To the Opposition Members who oppose the order I should like to address two questions on research. It has been admitted that one large section of the industry does not employ a single scientist. It is this situation to which we on this side of the House object. British industry will not do its job to the community unless it alters its attitude in this respect.

Mr. Osborne: Would the hon. Member define what he means by "scientist"?

Mr. Cobb: A scientist is either a trained physicist or a trained technologist.

Mr. Osborne: What is that?

Mr. Cobb: It is not surprising that the hon. Member, with the attitude to which he has been giving air tonight, does not understand what I mean by "trained technologist."

Mr. Osborne: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us?

Mr. Cobb: A trained technologist is a man who has been to a technical college or university and has been trained in one branch or another of technology. Alternatively, a scientist is a man who has been to a university and has come out with either a pass or an honours degree in science. It has been admitted by the Opposition that scientists are not

employed in this industry. I ask them now whether they have a research association. Apparently, they had not. It is just that attitude of mind of which we on this side of the House, the guardians of the consumer, complain. We do not believe that the industry will do its job by the community until it alters its attitude.
In 1945 I went to America. I am sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite would describe the American clothing industry as "go ahead." Whilst there, I bought a pair of pyjamas. They were subject to four different patents. That, however, is an idea quite foreign to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Americans have engaged in research and the firm in question, thinking they had better pyjamas than their competitors, patented them. I have never yet seen a pair of British pyjamas which were subject to a patent.
The other point which I should like to bring to the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite relates to our ideas for dealing with the question of seasonal fluctuation. I have worked nearly 30 years in an industry which is subject to this problem, and I know how it can be tackled. It is a difficult problem, on which there are two theories. One is the theory that the prime job of management—I am sure hon. Members opposite will not understand this—is forecasting and, flowing from forecasting, planning. I would suggest to hon. Members opposite that the most successful people in the clothing industry practise the difficult job of forecasting and planning. The unsuccessful, those the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) mentioned as beginning to view a pair of clogs with a little wistfulness, do not practise it and, in the long run, they go bankrupt. They may think that a good thing, but we do not think it is a good thing for the country.

Mr. Osborne: Hon. Members opposite prefer to keep the inefficient men still in work, do they?

Mr. Cobb: No, what I am suggesting is that it is not a good thing to get an amount of capital and labour in an enterprise which, due to sheer bad management, is allowed to go bankrupt. We do not think that is to the benefit of the community and that is why we want a


development council. The job of forecasting is very difficult and is funked by far too many managements. It is to decide 12 to 18 months ahead what a customer is going to want 18 months before the customer knows he wants it. This is one of the most difficult jobs of management, but it can be done, and is done. It is not done in a sufficient number of cases.
The alternative is what I call the theory of the fluid factory. One always hears inefficient salesmen and commercial managers supporting the theory of the fluid factory. The theory is that a factory is like a box with a number of keys on it. One presses "X" and 5,000 a week comes out. The salesman finds he is on a good thing and says "I do not want 5,000 a week, but 10,000 and I want it tomorrow." That is the alternative to forecasting. These are the reasons why we want a development council.
Turning to the question of technology and scientists, in America the United Garment Workers got "fed up" with their employers and engaged scientists and technologists whom they put in the factories in order to introduce modern methods. If hon. Members opposite continue their opposition, the trade unions here will do the same and we shall then see how they like it.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. William Shepherd: I must confess I have some little difficulty in following the hon. Member for Elland (Mr. Cobb). If I made an attempt to summarise his point of view, perhaps I might fairly say that he wants a development council in the clothing industry so that we can have patented pyjamas in Britain. It is true that different industries command and demand a greater number of technologists than others. In the clothing industry the greatest amount of research carried on today is not in the industries making up the garments, but in the industries concerned with the manufacture of materials which are used.

Mr. Cobb: Will the hon. Member say how many scientists they employ, how many technologists, and whether they have a research association?

Mr. Shepherd: I cannot give the number, but, if the hon. Member casts his mind over the materials used by the textile industry and the enormous number

of firms engaged in the industry—some of the foremost in the world—he will realise that the diversity of materials is very considerable. The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell), who made a speech which must have been of considerable embarrassment to the President of the Board of Trade, said that he thought the Opposition were tonight in the charge of rebels and that we were Trotskyist deviationists from the party line. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) has an engagement elsewhere. I do not know to what the earlier absence of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade was due; he did not tell us.
This Development Council Order is very different from any other order that has been before the House so far. We on this side of the House have adopted a consistent attitude towards development councils. We opposed the Second Reading because we were not satisfied about this compulsory element, and we sought to make many Amendments into the Bill. We supported the Government on the Second Reading because of the firm assurances we were given as to the Government's intention to pursue only a voluntary system and to avoid compulsion almost at all costs.
The objection which we raised when the Measure was still a Bill was that an enabling Bill was not a satisfactory means of carrying out this idea, and that that had been proved to the hilt. We see here and now that industries are so diverse in their make-up that it is impossible to carry out the Government's intentions through the medium of an order such as that which we are now debating. This discussion tonight is inadequate for the case which we have in mind. This matter ought to be probed much further than it can be in a short Debate such as this. The mechanism of an enabling Bill is quite improper for this purpose.
We on this side of the House are not opposed to development councils as such. We realise that there are many things that can be done in common by industries to the advantage of industry as a whole, and wherever it is practicable to do those things in common we want to see them done. Therefore, we are not opposed in any way to the concept of development councils. If any evidence is needed to


support that view, it is that we have, on cotton, furniture and jewellery, supported the Government in the development council orders that they have brought before the House. But we cannot support the present order for the clothing industry.
I hope tonight, even at this late hour, that the President of the Board of Trade will realise how unwise it is to persist with this order—unwise from the point of view not only of the industry but of the whole structure of development councils. If the right hon. Gentleman really believes that development councils are going to serve this country and industry well, he will do one thing tonight; he will announce that he is going to postpone the application of this order, because I know of nothing which is more likely to damage the concept of a development council than this order.
I should like to review one or two things which have happened. I ask this question specifically: Why did the right hon. Gentleman inform the industry at the outset in January, 1948, that a voluntary body would not be acceptable? Here was an industry filled with immense difficulties, and surely in this industry more than in any other a voluntary body might have solved the problem. I know that a compulsory body will not solve it. Why does the President of the Board of Trade say that a voluntary body will not be acceptable? We want an answer to this question. It is important to try to get behind the mind of the President of the Board of Trade and see exactly what he intends to do about this matter.
I should like to refer to the second meeting at which, according to my information, he made a most extraordinary statement on which this House ought to have an answer. He said that he was prepared to go ahead with a compulsory development council if all the employers in the industry objected to it. I want to know by what sense or reason the right hon. Gentleman made such a stupid and dangerous remark. I want to know why he was so foolish as to try to hold a pistol at the head of the industry and then imagine that afterwards he could get co-operation. If that is correct—and I invite him to say whether it is or not—it was a dangerous and stupid remark I see the right hon. Gentleman indicates

that it is not correct. Why, then, has he almost carried out what it is alleged that he threatened to do?
Surely he has had proof tonight that only a small proportion of the industry, a small proportion of the employers, will support a development council. It has been proved to the satisfaction of the House that only the smallest minority of employers are prepared to accept a development council. I do not know what is the percentage, but in terms of the productivity of the industry I should say that the number of people on the employers' side who are prepared to accept the development council does not amount to more than 5 per cent. of the total production. The President intends to impose a development council on an industry in which he knows that at least 95 per cent. of the employers are opposed to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Shephard), in an extremely able speech, pointed out how the very purpose of development councils could not be achieved in the clothing industry. The development council can succeed if there are within the industry certain clearly defined common purposes that can be served. In that case a development council can serve some very material purpose, but if there is, as in the case of the clothing industry, such a diversity of interests, then a single development council cannot function. Indeed, when the working party was set up, it was not a single working party to deal with the industry; there were three working parties set up. The Government itself, therefore, admits that this is not a single industry in the accepted sense of the term. We know there are no common functions which can be performed by a development council and that it is senseless to try to have a development council in an industry which has not sufficient common functions.

Mr. Charles Smith: Since the hon. Member has referred specifically to the reports of the working parties, is he aware that in the recommendations of the working party on the light clothing industry specific reference is made to
certain broad questions which concern both the light and heavy sections of the clothing industry


and to the fact that it is
essential that machinery should be provided which would enable those questions to be dealt with by and on behalf of both sections of the industry concerned, acting in concert"?

Mr. Shepherd: What the hon. Member must realise is that when we set up a development council in this way, in fact we put a levy on the industry; and if all sections of the industry do not receive an adequate return for the levy, there will be material discontent. That must happen in this case because there are 12 different sections, so that obviously six members—the total number allocated for the employers' side—cannot even represent all the sections. Obviously the whole thing cannot work, and if it could I am sure the trade would accept it.
In conclusion, I want to deal with the broader aspects of the question, which are perhaps more important than this immediate question. What if the right hon. Gentleman is foolish enough tonight to pursue this order and get an Affirmative Resolution? Presumably he has somebody in mind. I understand that the chairman-designate of this council is not prepared to go ahead under existing circumstances. As the thing stands, the first action of the President will be to throw over the chairman-designate and try to find another. What if he does set up this development council? I ask the House what conceivable good he will do to himself, to the country, to the industry or to the concept of development councils? I ask the House to consider what will happen. The development council has statutory powers only in respect of demanding returns of certain statistics and also in respect of the levy. No recommendation of the development council is binding upon those who have to pay for it, so that all that is likely to happen in the present circumstances is that the right hon. Gentleman will pursue his reckless and insane course of setting up this council and then find it absolutely marooned.
He can have his members of the council, his Quislings or semi-Quislings; he can spend an awful lot of the industry's money; and each and every one of the recommendations can be completely ignored in the industry itself. Is that what the right hon. Gentleman is setting out to do tonight? I can see nothing more likely than this happening. As

I said at the beginning of my speech, I can conceive is more likely to throw into complete disrepute the whole conception of development councils than what the President is trying to do tonight. If he sets up this organisation against the wishes of the trade, he will obviously do very material damage to the whole idea of development councils.
Let us remember that we are not here dealing with a well-tried instrument. I am ignoring for the purpose of this argument the Cotton Board, for circumstances in the cotton industry vary considerably. We are not dealing with a proven instrument, but dealing with a completely new idea which, in practice, may even fail. If this had been an idea that had been proved by experience, then the right hon. Gentleman would be justified in bringing this sort of pressure; but as the idea has not been proved by experience, he ought to proceed with the greatest possible caution, and aim to get the greatest amount of voluntary support for this scheme.
This Government is suspect so far as industry is concerned. Let us realise that. No one likes the executioner or the potential executioner. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member is found out."] That will be proved in a few months' time. To pursue the development council simply because a number of trade unionists want it is only to add to the suspicion which industry has, so far as this Government is concerned. Let us remember that the whole thing reeks of humbug and hypocrisy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will tell hon. Gentlemen opposite why it does. I will give them one example to show how really hypocritical the Government are over development councils.
The first time I ever heard about development councils was when I was reading the second report on the white fish industry by my right hon. Friend the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A Duncan), who was Chairman of the Sea-Fish Commission. He recommended a development commission for that industry. That, I think, was the first time this idea was ever expressed in public. That commission was, in fact, set up in 1938. And what happened? In 1949—a few months ago—the Government abolished the development commission set up for that industry. Why did


they do so? They did so because the Ministry of Food have great power over the fishing industry at the present time. It seems to me that what the Government seek to do is to get the maximum control over industry in one form or another. If they can get it by abolishing development councils, as in the case of the fishing industry, they do so. If they can get it by establishing one, they also do that.
I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to try to get a voluntary council in this industry. A compulsory one must fail. If our appeal goes unheeded, as so many of our appeals have gone unheeded in the past, we must reserve to ourselves the right within a few months after the General Election has been held to look very carefully indeed at this attempt to impose a development council where one cannot possibly succeed. If we are returned—[HON. MEMBERS: "If."]—we shall review this matter in realistic fashion. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman not to place us in that position but to abandon this order tonight, and to try to get a voluntary council which I believe to be the only one practicable in the circumstances.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. Wilson: If I may have the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I should like to reply to what the hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. W. Shepherd) and others have said, because the argument we have just listened to is one of the most extraordinary I have ever heard. What the hon. Gentleman seems to have been saying is that the Conservative Party, or at least the Conservative Party in this House, is not against development councils in principle, but it will not support a development council in any case where the employers, whoever the employers may be, whether a crowd of progressive-minded employers or backwoodsmen, are opposed to it. In other words, the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Tory Party has abdicated all responsibility for deciding for themselves, and they will only support a development council in those cases in which the employers think it desirable.

Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman is trying to misrepresent what I said. I repeat that we are not opposed to the principle of development councils, but where there is complete opposition by

the employers to a development council, we must consider the merits in each case. If we believe that the opposition is well-merited we shall oppose the order.

Mr. Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has not in any sense satisfied our feeling on this side of the House about this matter. It is quite clear that the hon. Gentleman and the Tory Party have no intention at all, judging from what has been said tonight, of supporting any development council if the employers are opposed to it. Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman went on to forecast what was likely to happen in the clothing industry if, as we anticipate, this order is passed. He went on to suggest that the employers would not only continue in their policy of non-co-operation in this matter, but that individual employers—all of them presumably—would boycott the work of the development council and attempt individually or collectively to frustrate the will of this House as declared both in the Act and this Measure tonight. The hon. Gentleman dealt with other points and I shall come back to them in a moment.
First, I should like to say a word about the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). We got into a little statistical difficulty at the beginning. He quite correctly said that insured employment in the industry was 507,000. I gave the number employed on productive processes as between 400,000 and 500,000. There is no contradiction between those two figures. In fact there are a number of clericals in the industry estimated at about 10 per cent. which would fully reconcile all the figures which we both quoted.
The statistics which he and other hon. Gentlemen quoted about the numbers alleged to be in support of, or alleged to be opposed to, the development council did lead in my view to a considerable misuse of the figures put forward. It was pointed out—and I have not disputed this figure—that the total trade union organisations in the industry represent not very much more than 30 per cent. of the total number of workers employed in the industry.
Therefore, it was suggested that perhaps the remaining 70 per cent. are against the development council. If that


argument is to be used, I may also remind the House that only 25 per cent. of the employers, at a liberal estimate, have, through their organisations, expressed hostility to the development council. Are we therefore to conclude that the other 75 per cent. are in favour of it. We can only go on the precise figures that we know. The figures which I gave the House are, I believe, accurate, and they show that the workers in the industry, as represented by their trade unions, are completely in favour of the development council, and that the employers are largely, but not completely, against it.
The hon. Gentleman quoted a statement I was alleged to have made that I did not propose to set up a development council for this industry against the wishes of the employers. When I challenged him on that, he did not substantiate it. I repeat that I said nothing of the kind at the meeting. I have with me a note of the meeting, and the statement recorded in that note is exactly as I gave it when an hon. Gentleman courteously gave way to me an hour or so ago. Then the hon. Gentleman went on to say that even if this order is passed, it will be useless because the Development Council have no power and authority, apart from the power to call for returns and registers of persons engaged in the industry. They can only make recommendations which individual manufacturerers will be free not to carry out. I agree with the definition of the legal position of the development council, but once again I invite the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the cotton industry, where the Cotton Board have no more power or functions than are proposed in this order, and where the Board have been able to give a tine lead to the industry, and a large number of individual employers have been only too glad to avail themselves of the services of the development council.

Commander Galbraith: Surely the reason for that is that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer succeeded in obtaining the help of the employers.

Mr. Wilson: That is one of the reasons I suggest that the employers in this industry are so misguided in opposing the development council.
The hon. Gentleman further argued, if I understood him correctly, that it was wrong to suggest that one single

council could cover the industry. He said that the proposal that there should be a single council covering the whole industry was one of the main reasons for the opposition of the employers. If that is so—and it was never put to me in the discussions with the employers—I ask him whether the employers would have been likely to support us if we had suggested, not a single body, but three, four or five development councils for the clothing industry? They had every chance over a period of two years to suggest separate development councils for separate sections of the industry. They have not made that suggestion. The hon. Gentleman poured scorn on the suggestion of having a single council for the whole industry.

Commander Galbraith: May I interrupt on this point, because it is one of considerable importance? The right hon. Gentleman, on 9th November, 1948, at the meeting with the industry said that in his opinion a single development council was appropriate and necessary. Surely if the right hon. Gentleman makes a statement like that, he means it, and therefore there was no use in the industry going ahead with other proposals.

Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman quote the words I used ten months earlier, when I said that I had an open mind on the particular form of the council appropriate to the industry and invited their ideas as to whether it should be a single council, a federal council or a series of separate councils. After ten months of non-co-operation and complete failure on the part of the employers to respond to that invitation, I naturally had to say what my point of view was. It is wrong of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to suggest that my statement of 9th November, 1948, means that the employers never had a chance to put forward an alternative suggestion. In any case, as I have already said, though individual Members of the House, including the hon. and gallant Gentleman, may pour scorn on the suggestion of a single council, the working parties themselves recommended a single council for the whole industry.
As to the noble Lord, the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), I do not propose to follow him in all he said tonight, particularly about Joan of Arc; but I liked his picture of what he called the valiant figure of British competitive


industry, although that figure was smirched a little by his references to monopolistic tendencies in certain industries. Seeing that he was specific in that, it was perhaps as well that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was not here; but I would say that these industries are being investigated by the Monopolies Commission, which is the proper body for this purpose.
The noble Lord said—and here I agree with him—that the function of any organisation set up in an industry such as this should be to protect the consumer if both sides of the industry should gang up against him. I would remind the noble Lord that there is more provision for the protection of the consumer in these development councils than in the trade associations and cartels which grew up so much in many industries under the rule of the party opposite.
The main attack tonight has not been on the details of the order, nor has it been so much in terms of the conditions of the industry; the main line of attack has been on the question whether we should set up a development council in an industry in the face of the hostility of the employers. There was considerable quotation, and in many cases misuse, of certain statements made by my right hon. Friends and hon. Friends, in this House at the time of the passage of the Industrial Organisation and Development Bill. Perhaps, since they were partially quoted, it is right that I should give the House an account of what was said. On Second Reading my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was then President of the Board of Trade, said—and I stand tonight by what he said then,
… to do things by compulsion is far less healthy and less effective than to do them by agreement. Even if agreement takes rather longer—as, of course, it must—it is, in the long run, more effective. Agreement must, wherever possible, be by both sides of the industry, and the majority of both sides.
I agree with that statement. Wherever we can get development councils by agreement, there is a much greater chance of success. Certainly no one can complain that I have rushed a decision. The matter has been debated and discussed with the industry for two years.

Colonel Hutchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he ever invited the

industry to put forward its proposals for a voluntary body?

Mr. Wilson: I will deal with that point in a moment. Let me now continue my quotation which reads:
I cannot, and I do not pretend to, give any undertaking that, in the last resort, in some special case, it may not be necessary to impose a development council by order, without the consent of everyone concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 552–554.]
That is the full statement which my right hon. and learned Friend made. The suggestions put forward tonight that this present proposal is a breach of the pledges given by him are a complete misrepresentation of the facts. As my right hon. Friend, the then Paymaster-General, said during the Report stage of the Bill:
We wish to proceed by agreement rather than by compulsion.
I have done that for two years. My right hon. Friend also said on that occasion:
While my right hon. and learned Friend does not wish to impose a development council upon an unwilling industry, nevertheless the facts may be that the least progressive elements in the industry concerned might constitute the majority."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 3rd June, 1947; Vol. 438, c. 54.]
And during the Third Reading Debate, my right hon. and learned Friend said:
In deciding which industries are suitable for the setting up of development councils under the Bill we shall take into account the views of both sides of industry, though perhaps with a bias in favour of setting up a development council where the two sides may differ in their opinions."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1947; Vol. 438, c. 91.]
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow (Colonel Hutchison) in addition to saying that we have betrayed the pledges which were made, went on to say that this is compulsion for compulsion's sake, and that here we have the iron hand without the velvet glove. Let me repeat again what I have already said several times—that the employers have never offered an advisory council in this industry, nor have I ever stated that I would never consider the idea of an advisory council if they had done so.

Colonel Hutchison: The right hon. Gentleman is not answering the question. Did he ever invite the employers to discuss the advisory council? From the outset they were led to believe that it was not acceptable. All he is saying is that he tried to persuade the employers to agree to the development council.

Mr. Wilson: I proceeded by discussing with the employers the reports of the three working parties. Two of these recommended the establishment of a development council, and the third was very much in agreement with the proposal; and I naturally started with the proposition from both sides of the industry of a development council, because the reports were unanimous. There was no reason why I should have invited them to approve something different from that, which came from the two sides of the industry. I have never said that I would not consider it if they suggested something. But to say there will be no co-operation is not the best way to advance the setting up of the appropriate machinery in this industry.

Commander Galbraith: I do not want it to go out that there has been some deliberate misstatement in regard to the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. It is clearly stated, on behalf of the employers' organisations, that he made it clear at the first meeting which was held—on 13th January, 1948—that a voluntary body was not regarded as suitable for the clothing industry.

Mr. Wilson: That is a very different thing from what has been attributed to me—that I was never prepared to consider an advisory council. It is a very different thing—[Interruption.] Yes, certainly. I made it clear to the industry that it was our view, as recommended in the working party's report, that there should be a development council for the industry. I said that I did not think an advisory council was the right way to proceed, and I must say that it seems that some right hon. and hon. Members opposite have been supplied with some information which comes pretty close, if I may say so, to a misrepresentation of the position.

Commander Galbraith: Cheap; very cheap.

Mr. Wilson: I have quoted the pledges given by my right hon. Friends in the House and I have shown that I have not departed from those pledges; I have shown that I have tried my hardest to get agreement over the past two years with the industry. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) says that this is not the right time to introduce this idea; but the industry, I would remind him,

could have had this proposition at any time within the last two years.

Mr. Osborne: Surely the right hon. Gentleman sees my point. He must admit that the economic crisis is greater than ever since 1947 and the need for exports is more urgent and greater than ever before.

Mr. Wilson: Yes, and the need for all these desirable objects under a development council are all the more urgent. The plain fact is that the employers in this industry, as in one or two others, have hardened their hearts against a development council as the General Election has got nearer. There was, in fact, a sudden change of heart in a number of industries in the winter of 1947–48, when a number of employers' associations, previously supporting the principle of a development council, suddenly turned against it. That sudden move I do not believe to have been a coincidence. It was not unorganised, and it was not unpolitical in its origin. But now the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok says that at this stage in the nation's economic affairs, and with the economic blizzard, there is need for national harmony and national unity, which he considers to be in danger of being wrecked by this suggestion.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Glasgow says this order destroys the team-spirit. Once again we have the sight of the Tory Party coming forward on a purely class policy, as this is, simply because employers in this industry are against a development council, and appealing for support for that policy in the interest of so-called national unity. I would like to say to them again tonight that it is their partisan, doctrinaire approach to this problem which is creating disunity. Are the Opposition really saying that because the employers do not want a development council in some industry, the workers in that industry are to be denied the great advantages a development council can bring? Are they saying that in every case the employers, for insufficient and doctrinaire reasons, should have the right to veto any proposition for a development council? We on our side entirely reject the view that only the employers should have any right to a say in the higher policy and the higher direction of their industry.
The employers in this case have never produced a reasoned case against this proposal; they have not produced any reasoned case at all, but have merely declared their unwillingness to co-operate. They have never produced a constructive alternative, and I am regretfully forced to the conclusion that the employers' objections

to this proposal are purely political, just as the opposition to this order is political, and I ask the House, in the interests of national unity and higher production, to agree to this Motion.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 77.

Division No. 269.]
AYES
[10.50 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Guy, W. H.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Price, M. Philips


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Hale, Leslie
Proctor, W. T.


Attewell, H. C.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Pryde, D. J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Ranger, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Hardy, E. A.
Rankin, J.


Baird, J.
Harrison, J.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Barton, C.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville.
Robens, A.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Berry, H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Royle, C.


Bing, G. H. C.
Hobson, C. R.
Scollan, T.


Binns, J.
Holman, P.
Shackleton, E. A. A.


Blenkinsop, A.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Sharp, Granville


Blyton, W. R.
Houghton, Douglas
Shurmer, P.


Boardman, H.
Hoy, J.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Bowden, H. W.
Hubbard, T.
Simmons, C. J.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Bramall, E. A.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Snow, J. W.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Sorensen, R. W.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Brown, George (Belper)
Janner, B.
Steele, T.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Burden, T. W.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S. E.)
Stokes, R. R.


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, R. H.
Swingler, S.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Sylvester, G. O.


Carmichael, James
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Cobb, F. A.
Keenan, W.



Collins, V. J.
Kinley, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cook, T. F.
Lavers, S.
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N. W.)
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Cullen, Mrs
Logan, D. G.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Daines, P.
Longden, F.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McAllister, G.
Timmons, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tolley, L.


Deer, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Delargy, H. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Diamond, J.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N. W.)
Vernon, Maj W. F.


Dobbie, W.
McKinlay, A. S.
Viant, S. P.


Dodds, N. N.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Donovan, T.
McLeavy, F.
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Warbey, W. N.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Watson, W. M.


Edelman, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mann, Mrs. J.
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mathers, Rt. Hon. George
West, D. G.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Messer, F.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Ewart, R.
Mitchison, G. R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Fairhurst, F.
Monslow, W.
Wigg, George


Farthing, W. J.
Moody, A. S.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Fernyhough, E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Follick, M.
Murray, J. D.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Forman, J. C.
Nally, W.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Oldfield, W. H.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Gibbins, J.
Orbach, M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Gilzean, A.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Woods, G. S.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Pannell, T. C.
Yates, V. F.


Grey, C. F.
Pargiter, G. A.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grierson, E.
Parker, J.



Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Parkin, B. T.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Pearson, A.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.


Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Porter, E. (Warrington)





NOES


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baldwin, A. E.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hollis, M. C.
Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Hope, Lord J.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Bossom, A. C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Bowen, R.
Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cmdr. J. G.
Jennings, R.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Challen, C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Low, A. R. W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Studholme, H. G.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crowder, Capt. John E.
MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Touche, G. C.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
McFarlane, C. S.
Turton, R. H.


Drayson, G. B.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Walker-Smith, D.


Drewe, C.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Duthie, W. S.
Marples, A. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Elliot, Lieut-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Mellor, Sir J.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, Cmdr T. D. (Pollok)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
York, C.


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Nicholson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col A.
Odey, G. W.
Brigadier Mackeson and


Harvey, Air-Comdre A. V.
Osborne, C.
Mr. Wingfield Digby.


Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Draft Clothing Industry Development Council Order, 1949, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th September, be approved.

SALT WORKS (COAL PRICES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

10.57 p.m.

Mr. John Foster: I want to raise tonight a matter of some importance to the salt works of this country, and more particularly to those in the neighbourhood of Middlewich, Northwich and the Potteries. I raise it in connection with the service charge which has fairly recently been imposed by the National Coal Board.
I take as a typical example the case of the salt works known as Seddon's, Middlewich. It is fairly typical of the other works in the district, and is also typical of the effect this charge has upon them. In Middlewich Messrs. Seddon's works are adapted for taking coal by canal. Two works out of three are only adapted for canal-borne coal and the railway station is three-quarters of a mile away. In spite of the general assurance that the prices of fuel would not be raised this year by the Board, the fact is that in May two grades of coal which they use almost exclusively were raised by quite a considerable amount.
They depend for their supply on two Staffordshire collieries. Colliery "A" raised the price of fuel from 43s. 11d. to 46s. 3d. and colliery "B" from 41s. 11d. to 43s. 9d. This is apart from the service charge. In addition they were charged this so-called service charge of half-a-crown for road transport, 1s. 6d. for canal transport and 4d. if the fuel went by rail, thus making a total increase from the first colliery of 4s. 10d. to 2s. 8d. and of 4s. 4d. to 2s. 2d. from colliery "B." One should note that the canal charge was at first one of 2s., and the Coal Board at first maintained that the 2s was a necessary charge because it covered the actual cost but later they reduced it by 6d. Evidently this actual cost was not correct because there is no evidence that the actual cost did go down by 6d. during the time the complaint was made.
Previously pithead prices had not had any separate service charge and the National Coal Board had not provided any extra facilities since they were instituted. Therefore, the salt works maintain that, pithead prices having covered these facilities before, they should cover them now, because if a service charge is imposed it is an indirect way of raising the price of coal. There has been a meeting recently at which a good deal of confusion developed, because the National Coal Board seems to have stated at that meeting that the rail charge of 4d. was not really a service charge but was to cover the cost of answering complaints. They called it a distributive charge for general


services—invoicing, attending to complaints, etc. It was explained that the charges of 1s. 6d. for canal and 2s. 6d. for road included this 4d. distributive charge.
That is an extra complication, but it does emerge from this that if coal is taken by rail there is a considerable advantage. It can be got for 2s. 2d. a ton cheaper than if taken by road and for 1s. 2d. a ton cheaper than if taken by canal. But what is a works to do if it is only adapted for canal?
Again the National Coal Board have said that this is an intermediate step and that they are likely to change it. So that all that has to be done is to change the layout of the works and adapt it for road or rail and the charge of 1s. 6d. will be taken from the canal and put on the rail charges.
My only reason for raising this matter tonight is that I want the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power to explain why this service charge is imposed, what is the justificaition for it, and what extra service the National Coal Board are giving, which previously collieries did not give. I hope the hon. Gentleman will also remember in this connection that the salt trade has made a voluntary reduction in the price of salt. I mean by this that it could have got a higher price if it had wanted, but, in order to help the consumers of salt, it deliberately forwent a profit it could have made. I hope that it kept the export price up. In the light of this, it is unfortunate that there should have been this double increase later in the year—the increase in the price of fuel at the pithead, and then the addition of this service charge.
I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to look into this matter so that this burden on the salt trade may be alleviated. It is a trade which flourishes in my constituency, and has flourished there for many years. It deserves well of the country, for it is an export trade and a vigorous industry. We have a grievance that the men employed in it do not get enough to eat. They work hard and do not draw extra rations. That is a matter for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Food, but when one sees them shift eight tons of salt through four operations in

eight hours, and then move seven and a half tons of coal—which they have to go outside to do—it makes one wish they could get enough to eat. Coal prices affect the production of salt, and therefore I hope the hon. Gentleman will answer these questions.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Peter Roberts: I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised this subject, because it is worrying people not only in the salt trade, but all over the country. The Minister has replied that these charges are made where the Coal Board are supplying coal not through a merchant. It is said that if the consumer went to a merchant he would be charged for this service, and consequently they are entitled to make a service charge. But there seems to be no co-ordination in this matter. It seems to be left entirely to the discretion of the sales officers of the National Coal Board. I have a case of a charge not of 2s. 6d. or 4s. 4d. a ton, but 5s., and that charge is authorised by the Minister of Fuel and Power.
There should be some arrangement whereby certain charges for putting a label on a truck or covering normal risks would be on a uniform scale. In the old days it was never more than 3d. or 6d. The National Coal Board cannot substantiate a charge of 5s.; it is really fantastic. What has happened is that the Minister has had the point brought to his notice that certain companies were getting coal without merchants' charge and that a service charge should be put on but it was not properly regulated and now the sales officers are putting on charges up to 5s. There is a complete lack of responsibility which the Minister should check. I hope these prices will be looked into and regulated all over the country. As far as possible, they should not exceed the actual charges for which the Coal Board are responsible.

11.8 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens): There is a great deal of misunderstanding about these charges. If only for the reason that it gives me an opportunity of explaining to the House precisely what has happened during the last few months in relation to the sale of coal from the pithead, I think this Debate is worth while.
May I explain that up to 30th May of this year, colliery disposals were only done through the recognised channels. In other words, there might be a particular agent with sole rights for the disposal of a particular colliery's output. It might be that more than one agent had the right of disposal. But at all events up to 30th May the commercial channels that had been available were used. On 30th May there was a change, and the change was to give complete freedom to all purchasers of coal of over 100 tons a year to buy their coal direct from the National Coal Board, to buy it through a factor or handle their purchases themselves. There was complete freedom, and the sole agency arrangements were abolished. At the same time the pithead price was fixed. In consideration of that price, the Coal Board had to load the coal into railway wagons, weigh them, label them, hand them over to the railways for disposal, and advise the purchaser of having done so.

Mr. Foster: There is nothing new about that.

Mr. Robens: Of course there is not, but I am explaining what takes place. If the hon. Gentleman were a purchaser, he could, if he so desired, pay the pithead price and have those services rendered by the National Coal Board. If he did not take advantage of the services of the Board, he would either himself get in touch with the railways to move his coal from the pithead, follow the traffic, arrange for certain wagons to go to one place and others to another, check up with the Coal Board or colliery any weight shortages or things of that character, and, indeed, see his coal safely from pit to wherever he wanted it delivered. Presumably that would cost him something. How much it would cost him would depend on the circumstances of the particular transaction. It would be impossible for each to be uniform.
He might not want to do that for himself, and therefore he might get a factor to do it for him. The factor would do it willingly and charge him so much a ton for services rendered in taking up the coal and delivering it in the required quantities wherever it was wanted. Perhaps the purchaser would not want to go to a factor because, in his opinion, the factor's price was too high, and perhaps also he would not want to do the job himself. He

could then go to the National Coal Board and ask them to perform this service for him. The Coal Board would then tell him they would do it and the charge would be x pence per ton.

Mr. P. Roberts: How do they arrive at that charge?

Mr. Robens: The answer is that the National Coal Board will determine that charge in the ordinary commercial way as between the purchaser of the coal and the Coal Board delivering. After all, hon. Gentlemen opposite, in Debates in this House in which I have been privileged to take part, have been constantly telling me of the benefits of competition. Well, here it is. If a purchaser does not like the Coal Board's charges, he can get a factor to do it, or he can do it himself. There is free competition.

Mr. Roberts: That is a quite fantastic argument. In the case of the great contracts which have been in existence for many years without this service charge, the Parliamentary Secretary is now saying that the costs of the producing company must be raised because of the use of a factor or the National Coal Board. That is ridiculous.

Mr. Robens: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, who knows something about the coal industry, should imagine that at any time in the history of the industry it has been possible to convey coal from A to B at a cost of nothing at all. It must cost something somewhere. Whether it is paid at the pithead or shown under two or three separate items, it must be paid somewhere, and the new structure is that the pithead price has been fixed.

Mr. Roberts: It has been raised.

Mr. Robens: In certain qualities it has been lowered and in others raised. If we take those which have been lowered and those which have been raised, there is no gain to the National Coal Board. The increases and lowerings of prices were based on the fact that an increase in the price of coal in a lump sum on all qualities means that the cost of various qualities get out of balance.

Mr. Roberts: But surely where the previous pithead price included this cost, there has been a real increase, because obviously if it cost £100 at the pithead


before and it is £100 plus now, the addition must be the service charge.

Mr. Robens: Not necessarily so. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that certain coals were increased in price. I am now saying that certain coals were decreased in price.

Mr. Foster: Only the qualities we used were increased.

Mr. Robens: It is not being disputed that the price of certain coals has been decreased?

Mr. Roberts: The coal prices which have been decreased are those for very poor slacks which would accumulate in stock and would not otherwise be disposed of.

Mr. Robens: With respect, I say the Board are doing nothing of the kind. Stocks accumulate and are disposed of from time to time. There is nothing in relation to stocks being held which gives anybody cause for worry. The fact is that prices got out of balance during the war, because of flat increases in prices, and no one knows that better than the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Mr. P. Roberts). Obviously, certain high quality coals are out of balance with low quality coals. Of course, that is right. Now, we are putting that into line by raising the price of certain coals and decreasing the price of others.
We are now stopping the sole sales arrangement and allowing anybody buying over 100 tons of coal a year to buy it at pithead prices. They need not get the National Coal Board to service this coal at all. They can have a factor, or do it themselves. But the fact is that there are pithead prices. There is now competition between the Coal Boards, the factors and the individuals themselves in relation to the servicing of the coal from the pithead. I do not see anything wrong in that. It seems to me to be a good and sensible thing to do, and for the life of me I do not understand the complaints that are being made. If the charge by the National Coal Board is too high, do not get the Coal Board to do the job, get somebody else.

Mr. Foster: The complaint is that if the charge was 100 before nationalisation

for the pithead price with servicing, and the present charge is 100, the pithead price has been increased, because the service charge is put on top.

Mr. Robens: No, it is not so at all. The increases in the cost of coal have been occasioned more by the fact that wages and other things have increased than by any other reason. In the first year of nationalisation something like £63 million of increased benefits were given to the men who work in the industry. It is not a question of service charges being additional. All we have done is to fix the pithead price of coal. We leave it quite free for the purchaser to choose the individual to render him the service of taking that coal from the pithead to the place where he wants it. If he does not like what the Coal Board are charging, he does not need to get them to do it. He can get a factor or do it himself.
One point I must take up with the hon. Gentleman—and one admires his power of argument, in which he is well skilled—is that it does not follow, because it is 2s. 6d. a ton by road, 1s. 6d. by canal barge, and 4d. by rail, that the price when it gets to the delivery spot is more per ton by road than by rail. It all depends, does it not, on the cost of freight? Of course, it does. So that is rather a bad argument to make in relation to the instance to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that some salt factories were worse off than others because they had their coal delivered by road or canal as against coal with service charges at a lower rate per ton. It is the delivered price that counts, and many factors come into that. I hope I have explained this fairly clearly.

Mr. Roberts: What worries me is that the sales officers are given these powers and there may be grave abuses, with charges up to 5s. a ton or more, unless the Minister is prepared to do something about it.

Mr. Robens: That is interesting to me, because I know that hon. Gentlemen believe in competition as a means of putting a fair price against a service. If a sales officer of the Coal Board says to a purchaser that the service charge is 5s. a ton, all the purchaser has to say is "Do not give me this service. I do not want it. I am going to get a factor to do it more cheaply."

Mr. Roberts: He will charge the same price.

Mr. Robens: Well, let the purchaser do it himself. The fact is that there are plenty of opportunities for it. If the Coal Board prices are too high for servicing, let him do it himself. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman wants.
With reference to the specific points which the hon. Member has raised, obviously arrangements between one undertaking, which is purchasing, and the Coal Board, are matters of day-to-day administration. I am advised, however, that the West Midlands Region is at this moment discussing in the ordinary commercial way the charges with the salt federation concerned. I am certain that as business men on both sides, acting perfectly freely,

the salt people not being tied to the Coal Board, they will arrive at some reasonable arrangement in relation to prices. Therefore, I cannot see why this should be a matter of consternation to the hon. Gentleman. I should have thought that he would have come to this House and complimented us upon doing a useful piece of work, and upon letting this free competition flow along proper channels and so helping this industry and the people who purchase the coal to do some of the jobs for themselves if they do not like what the Coal Board are doing for them.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.